Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
www.play-board-games.com blogs about How DnD 4th Edition is like a board game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5238883" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>LostSoul, as always thanks for the interesting and engaging replies!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Before I get to the examples, let me say that I agree with this, but that's also why in my earlier post I raised the issue of what actually counts as "fully playing the game"? If you take page 42 of the DMG seriously, and also the text for the Acrobatics skill in the PHB (to which I first had my attention drawn by your suggestion that a Rogue dive into the maw of a purple worm to rescue a swallowed magic-user - great stuff!), then playing the game <em>requires</em> having regard to the fictional context. Play which has regard only to the stat block, and which therefore disregards p 42, and which privileges Athletics over Acrobatics as a skill (because the Athletics rules have stats in them), can ignore the fiction, I agree.</p><p></p><p>Maybe the game is to some extent incoherent in its rules - presenting such tight stat blocks that they create a strong reason no to depart from them (hence your desire to rewrite parts of the game to expressly create the lacuna for GM input), but also presenting open-ended fiction-first rules like p 42 and Acrobatics.</p><p></p><p>Of course, even if p 42 and Acrobatics make the fiction matter in some cases, they don't make it matter in all cases. Which brings me to the examples, and some thoughts on them.</p><p></p><p>This is an interesting one. The rules for Oozes describe them as "amorphous", and the flavour text for Ochre Jellies says that they can slip under doors and pour through narrow cracks, and that they can't climb steps, but none of this is reflected in the stat block - whereas other stat blocks do give special squeezing powers (like Larva mages). And while the PHB rules for squeezing give the GM a lot of discretion for Medium or smaller creatures, this is not the case for Large creatures like Jellies and Puddings. </p><p></p><p>On balance, this seems to me to be a case of poorly written stats, where the stats don't give full effect to the desingers' intentions. Alternatively, it could be that the keyword "ooze", in describing oozes as amorphous and giving them special squeezing privileges, hasn't quite said everything that it should have about oozes going under doors and the like. Either way, I'd have no problem letting a black pudding - "like a massive pool of tar" - slide under a door. And I don't think my players could really accuse me of breaking the rules in doing so.</p><p></p><p>This one I'm not sure about. I don't see why a disarm isn't possible under p 42, or using domination. I've followed the Dominate and Disarm thread, and on the whole am more sympathetic to those who think that it is permissible (after all, "drop held item" is a free action - PHB p 289 - that can be performed at will). The real solution seems to me to be permitting the creature or PC who is disarmed in this way to perform non-power manoeuvres based on DMG p 42.</p><p></p><p>Aegeri has replied to this to an extent, but I agree that it is an issue. The fighter PC in my group has this, and narrating it is not all that straightforward. I'm still thinking about ways of handling it.</p><p></p><p>I'm mostly in the latter camp - monsters are colour, and I adjust levels if I have to. However, part of the colour I am looking for in my campaign is "the story of D&D", and that puts limits on how far you can vary levels - eg once you're paragon you're not really meant to be dealing with orcs anymore, unless they're from Gruumsh's plane!</p><p></p><p>While I agree with you that 4e can be used for a variety of play goals, when it comes to monster level I think the most natural way of making sense of the level system in 4e is that it does, by default, push games into the story of D&D.</p><p></p><p>On all these issues I've been too influenced by your posts back in the early 4e days to have an independent view! I don't think I've yet had a PC use Intimidate to do psychic damage, but I've had a PC use Religion to get combat advantage against a Wight. I haven't thought about using Diplomacy to heal, but that's a very interesting idea - I think the relationship should matter, affecting the DC (moderate vs hard). The action would have to be a standard one, to preserve action economy balance. To balance it against healing powers, I think that the PC using diplomacy might have to take some psychic damage if the attempt fails - they are gutted as they realise the relationship doesn't mean the same thing to the other person, or at least doesn't have the same power to drive them, as it does the would-be healing PC.</p><p></p><p>In my view the biggest gap in the 4e rules is advice on how to use p 42, and the skill challenge rules more generally, to achieve various play goals in various contexts - and in particular, how these parts of the game are meant to interact with the combat mechanics. It's the absence of that sort of material that (for me, at least) gives the biggest feeling of incoherence of the sort I talked about above.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5238883, member: 42582"] LostSoul, as always thanks for the interesting and engaging replies! Before I get to the examples, let me say that I agree with this, but that's also why in my earlier post I raised the issue of what actually counts as "fully playing the game"? If you take page 42 of the DMG seriously, and also the text for the Acrobatics skill in the PHB (to which I first had my attention drawn by your suggestion that a Rogue dive into the maw of a purple worm to rescue a swallowed magic-user - great stuff!), then playing the game [I]requires[/I] having regard to the fictional context. Play which has regard only to the stat block, and which therefore disregards p 42, and which privileges Athletics over Acrobatics as a skill (because the Athletics rules have stats in them), can ignore the fiction, I agree. Maybe the game is to some extent incoherent in its rules - presenting such tight stat blocks that they create a strong reason no to depart from them (hence your desire to rewrite parts of the game to expressly create the lacuna for GM input), but also presenting open-ended fiction-first rules like p 42 and Acrobatics. Of course, even if p 42 and Acrobatics make the fiction matter in some cases, they don't make it matter in all cases. Which brings me to the examples, and some thoughts on them. This is an interesting one. The rules for Oozes describe them as "amorphous", and the flavour text for Ochre Jellies says that they can slip under doors and pour through narrow cracks, and that they can't climb steps, but none of this is reflected in the stat block - whereas other stat blocks do give special squeezing powers (like Larva mages). And while the PHB rules for squeezing give the GM a lot of discretion for Medium or smaller creatures, this is not the case for Large creatures like Jellies and Puddings. On balance, this seems to me to be a case of poorly written stats, where the stats don't give full effect to the desingers' intentions. Alternatively, it could be that the keyword "ooze", in describing oozes as amorphous and giving them special squeezing privileges, hasn't quite said everything that it should have about oozes going under doors and the like. Either way, I'd have no problem letting a black pudding - "like a massive pool of tar" - slide under a door. And I don't think my players could really accuse me of breaking the rules in doing so. This one I'm not sure about. I don't see why a disarm isn't possible under p 42, or using domination. I've followed the Dominate and Disarm thread, and on the whole am more sympathetic to those who think that it is permissible (after all, "drop held item" is a free action - PHB p 289 - that can be performed at will). The real solution seems to me to be permitting the creature or PC who is disarmed in this way to perform non-power manoeuvres based on DMG p 42. Aegeri has replied to this to an extent, but I agree that it is an issue. The fighter PC in my group has this, and narrating it is not all that straightforward. I'm still thinking about ways of handling it. I'm mostly in the latter camp - monsters are colour, and I adjust levels if I have to. However, part of the colour I am looking for in my campaign is "the story of D&D", and that puts limits on how far you can vary levels - eg once you're paragon you're not really meant to be dealing with orcs anymore, unless they're from Gruumsh's plane! While I agree with you that 4e can be used for a variety of play goals, when it comes to monster level I think the most natural way of making sense of the level system in 4e is that it does, by default, push games into the story of D&D. On all these issues I've been too influenced by your posts back in the early 4e days to have an independent view! I don't think I've yet had a PC use Intimidate to do psychic damage, but I've had a PC use Religion to get combat advantage against a Wight. I haven't thought about using Diplomacy to heal, but that's a very interesting idea - I think the relationship should matter, affecting the DC (moderate vs hard). The action would have to be a standard one, to preserve action economy balance. To balance it against healing powers, I think that the PC using diplomacy might have to take some psychic damage if the attempt fails - they are gutted as they realise the relationship doesn't mean the same thing to the other person, or at least doesn't have the same power to drive them, as it does the would-be healing PC. In my view the biggest gap in the 4e rules is advice on how to use p 42, and the skill challenge rules more generally, to achieve various play goals in various contexts - and in particular, how these parts of the game are meant to interact with the combat mechanics. It's the absence of that sort of material that (for me, at least) gives the biggest feeling of incoherence of the sort I talked about above. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
www.play-board-games.com blogs about How DnD 4th Edition is like a board game
Top