D&D 4E In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective

AbdulAlhazred · Jun 5, 2019

Saelorn said:
A quick check of the AD&D Monster Manual shows the shadow and spectre (as well as wraith) having a chilling touch, described as supernatural cold. I never said that an incorporeal creature couldn't supernaturally affect a corporeal one; I just said that all HP damage is described in a manner that's consistent with physical injury. Chilling touch makes sense as dealing cold damage, at least as much as Cone of Cold does.
I have to imagine it's similar logic to a sneak attack; failing the save means you're allowing the 10% of non-illusory energy to hit you in the worst possible way. Honestly, though, if you accept psychic damage as being physical damage to the body (albeit caused by the mind), then we may not be so far apart on this than I had originally thought. Most people seem to pitch psychic damage as an entirely non-physical phenomenon, with no signs on the body whatsoever.
I won't argue about the design issues inherent with non-damaging spells. I'm a big fan of Pathfinder's decision to make Turn Undead into a positive energy wave damage effect, for example.

Well, I still think that Gygax was perfectly justified in, and he certainly hit common usage squarely, when he described hit points as a combination of things and implied that 'hit' and 'miss' are simply conventions, not literal rigid narrative. It isn't all that easy to come up with ANY really consistent single interpretation of D&D rules, and I don't think it is worth doing, really. Saying you can only play with people who imagine it a certain way definitely strikes me as quite rigid, and odd for play of a game of pure imagination.

So, in the end, IMHO all 4e did was be more consistent about utilizing hit points as 'measure of defeat' rather than being all over the map in terms of what they're doing in any given situation. That is greatly helped by a consistent set of mechanics. Much easier to construct an interesting narrative with this sort of wiggle room, IMHO.

thanson02 · Jun 5, 2019

AbdulAlhazred said:
I think the main thing to keep in mind with 4e is it is REALLY geared towards being a kind of action/adventure game with the PCs playing fairly straightforward, though potentially quite varied and even unique, protagonists. It rewards things like high action dynamic scenarios which mix fighting with story goals and such things. So for instance:

Once I ran a scenario, as part of a larger story arc, where the PCs discovered that the big bad guy had captured some of their NPC friends and was down at the lumber mill. So the PC rode the log flume down into the mill, leapt inside and confronted the BBEG, complete with damsel about to be sliced in half by the saw, etc. This was a terrific and awesome scenario, with all sorts of thrills, a lot of skill checks, things moving around all over the place, ropes, piles of lumber, etc. etc. etc. This particular one didn't include an SC, per se, but it isn't hard to integrate that too if it is needed. The key was that the scenario was much more than just 'kill the bad guys in room 3'. 4e is no good for that later type of thing, which is why a lot of the adventures that were published in earlier 4e were basically long slogs. Later ones did get better, but it really isn't a game where trivial filler encounters work well.

4e wants to engage plot with a vengeance, and it is pretty good at it! Much better than classic D&D where either the party lacks real caster power, and thus is very limited in what it can do, or is pretty much shaped and dominated in a plot and planning sense by what those specific characters capabilities are. It is a much less easy game to work in story with than 4e, IME.

100% agree. I use the term "cinimatic" to discribe what you said, but we are on the same page.

Btw, awesome senareo! That sounds like it was a ton of fun.

tomBitonti · Jun 5, 2019

Shadows cause damage supernaturally, with inverted similarity to a paladin laying on hands.

A Marshall bolstering a companion doesn’t have the same feel. Purely psychological effects have been modeled as fear, or as bonuses to checks, but not as adding or removing hit points — until 4E. I don’t find this new model to be inconsistent with a Gygaxian description of hit points, but I agree that until 4E no one followed the Gygaxian description to its clear conclusion.

But then, oughtn’t “berate” be a possible attack that does hit point damage? And, oughtn’t anyone be able to perform a bolster action (albeit with a much lower chance of success?)

An additional problem is the loss of certain attributes that 3E folks were accustomed to, with very jarring results. As a 3E veteran, I’m used to thinking of certain creature types as being mindless, which makes the immune to mind affecting abilities. That level of detail was dropped from 4E. Not wanting to drop the older model, I’m left with a contradictory result.

A problem, I’m thinking, is that 4E went too far in allowing effects to be reskinned, with keywords not having any fixed interpretation. Putting Fire as a keyword had no interpretive meaning, other than purely syntactic interactions provided by the rules. I very much prefer keywords being an interpretive guide!

Thx!
TomB

MwaO · Jun 5, 2019

tomBitonti said:
A problem, I’m thinking, is that 4E went too far in allowing effects to be reskinned, with keywords not having any fixed interpretation. Putting Fire as a keyword had no interpretive meaning, other than purely syntactic interactions provided by the rules. I very much prefer keywords being an interpretive guide!

They both do and they don't:
Mechanically, fire is fire. Pretty much in every edition.
Interpretatively, in every edition, the DM decided what they wanted fire to do.

4e's only real difference here is that 4e suggests that the DM talk to the players and tell them the kind of campaign they want to run and to get table agreement on it. And some DMs interpreted that as meaning the DMG was trying to take away the DM's power, when it was really saying, "Hey, we realize, some D&D players can get really passive-aggressive. Why don't we get everything understood so no one decides to blow up the campaign because they've been secretly pissed off for the past two months?"

Player: "Well, I really had my heart set on a Cleric, but this is Dark Sun? Thought divine PCs weren't allowed..."
DM: "Nope, divine PCs are fine, but have to tune to various elemental spirits rather than deities."
Player: "Oh, ok, that's great!"

vs

Player(sullenly muttering unintelligibly under breath about 'Stupid Dark Sun'): "Here's my Bard. No one minds if I sing out of tune?"

Garthanos · Jun 5, 2019

cbwjm said:
The bloodied condition and abilities keying off it was something I really liked about 4e to the point where in thinking if introducing it in my 5e games.

its kind of pervasive I wanted even more of it in 4e... more classes or subclasses making use of it.

More rules to enable desperation moves based on it perhaps to accelerate a necessary battle when people are running out of powers (and I didnt include good environmental things to exploit oops)

Garthanos · Jun 5, 2019

tomBitonti said:
But then, oughtn’t “berate” be a possible attack that does hit point damage? And, oughtn’t anyone be able to perform a bolster action (albeit with a much lower chance of success?)

Bards do? Mocking Words.

First Aid Grant Second Wind?

thanson02 · Jun 5, 2019

MwaO said:
They both do and they don't:
Mechanically, fire is fire. Pretty much in every edition.
Interpretatively, in every edition, the DM decided what they wanted fire to do.

4e's only real difference here is that 4e suggests that the DM talk to the players and tell them the kind of campaign they want to run and to get table agreement on it. And some DMs interpreted that as meaning the DMG was trying to take away the DM's power, when it was really saying, "Hey, we realize, some D&D players can get really passive-aggressive. Why don't we get everything understood so no one decides to blow up the campaign because they've been secretly pissed off for the past two months?"

Player: "Well, I really had my heart set on a Cleric, but this is Dark Sun? Thought divine PCs weren't allowed..."
DM: "Nope, divine PCs are fine, but have to tune to various elemental spirits rather than deities."
Player: "Oh, ok, that's great!"

vs

Player(sullenly muttering unintelligibly under breath about 'Stupid Dark Sun'): "Here's my Bard. No one minds if I sing out of tune?"

And thus the beauty of a modular gaming system.

tomBitonti · Jun 5, 2019

Garthanos said:
Bards do? Mocking Words.

First Aid Grant Second Wind?

Which fits. Although, Mocking Words is in PHB II, and seems to have generated some controversy. And, it has a keyword psychic, which would seem to make it at least partially magical. Is the keyword necessary?

Thx!
TomB

MwaO · Jun 5, 2019

tomBitonti said:
Which fits. Although, Mocking Words is in PHB II, and seems to have generated some controversy. And, it has a keyword psychic, which would seem to make it at least partially magical. Is the keyword necessary?

Damage that doesn't have a keyword is untyped. Which would be weirder. And Bards are arcane casters in 4e.

Garthanos · Jun 5, 2019

tomBitonti said:
Which fits. Although, Mocking Words is in PHB II, and seems to have generated some controversy. And, it has a keyword psychic, which would seem to make it at least partially magical. Is the keyword necessary?

Thx!
TomB

Martial effects can have key words many have fear for instance. (though the bard was initially entirely arcane they introduced the skald and really its always been a very mixed class)

There has also discussion that the Intimidate combat use (which for its most intense incapacitating effects requires a bloodied enemy) could in general have been replaced by something like that with a fear key word.

Reduced to zero hit points is an open ended fully incapacitated condition in many ways (just as that intimidate can cause many effects)

I have generally looked at skills and thought all needed a worthwhile combat use. Diplomacy to trigger a second wind without an action from the subject or just a minimal hitpoint recovery... might work as sensibly as the the first aid skill.

Arguably one might go further.