D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

What are your favorite 4E elements?


That's what I'm saying. I'm fairly certain that it's possible, but I'm not sure if my attempt will be successful. Me not getting to that level would be like the sorcerer, in this example, failing to properly channel the chaotic energies - not because it's impossible, but because he's just not good enough.

If you define what's possible based on whether or not the check was successful, then you remove any possibility of someone failing at a task which can be accomplished.

but nobody said that failure COULDN'T represent you simply not succeeding. All that remains is for the DM to determine how to tell the difference (if he cares, he could just decide which it is and that's his input on the laws of that world).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

LostSoul

Adventurer
This brings me to an interesting thought (at least to me). I've heard many proponents wax about the rules-lite nature of 5e. I hear that and I just blink with incredulity. 5e isn't even close to rules-lite. I think what they might actually be saying is "5e requires heavy-handed GMing to make it work...and it is trim enough in the right areas *...opaque enough in most areas **...and has a few simple/elegant tools *** that the GM can provide some key decision-points to the players (provide some agency) while still having force and illusionism in their back pocket (because they are so enabled by the system) to keep the story humming along while the mechanics fade **** into the background (hear that last bit a lot)."

* bounded accuracy keeps number inflation down

** rulings not rules bulwarked by (1) "it is the GM's game, (2) natural language with mechanics intertwined, and (3) open-ended wording in a few key areas where important rules intersect allowing for multiple interpretations.

*** Basic d20 mechanics + Advantage + Inspiration + Concentration + multiple of 5 DCs

**** hopefully not into irrelevance!

I get the same feeling when I hear about "rulings, not rules". I always understood that to mean that the rules said: DM, now is the time to make a ruling. Instead what I'm getting from all the 5E posts is that the DM can override whatever's written for whatever meta-game considerations they have at the moment. Which seems like a terribly difficult way to DM! Not only do you have to keep all the NPCs in line, but you have to make sure you know how the players are feeling at any given time.

I'm busy with my own game and HP damage is determined by fictional positioning - I have a little table with some keywords and numbers associated with them. So as DM I'm expected to say, "I think that is a "Killing Blow", so it deals 24 damage." Determining where the damage falls on the chart is obviously a judgement call - a ruling. That's what I think of when I hear about rulings: points in the rules where they ask the DM to make a ruling. B/X Reaction Rolls are like that.

When I read the 5E posts, "rulings not rules" seems to mean "the DM should take meta-game considerations into every bit of action resolution". Are the players bored? Then you succeed and the conflict ends. Are the players feeling like this is too easy? Then make it more difficult - add some HP, make an NPC save, overrule a PC ability.

If I were running things that way I'd get burnt out in no time. I made my system so I trust it, and it hasn't let me down so far - well, during this last campaign, at least! I'm not afraid to attack the marrow of the system. (I'm considering going to a die-pool system instead of the bonus die system I have at the moment.)
 

Balesir

Adventurer
If you're letting the dice determine the laws of physics, as has been suggested, then failure means that it's not physically possible, and success means that it's both possible and you've accomplished the effect. You omit the possible result of "It's possible, but I just can't do it", which really should be the most common outcome for this type of experiment.
That was never what I suggested - please read the original posts.

My suggested schema is that success means that you have succeeded (obviously), which means that what you tried was possible, but you don't know much about it. There may be limitations you don't know about, circumstances that affected your success that may be different next time, and so on. Failure means you didn't get what you wanted. Maybe it's impossible. Maybe you just weren't good enough to achieve it. Maybe circumstances were present that made it impossible on this occasion, but in different circumstances it would/could have worked. You just don't know.

All this is why I suggested originally that a failure might mean that the next roll for something similar/based on similar principles should be harder; the first failure represents evidence that it might not be possible. An initial success, on the other hand, means you still need to roll next time, because the success might have been dependent on circumstances or something specific you did right (but didn't realise was important at the time).

Real science is not determined by single experiments - or even single papers. It works through an accumulating body of evidence formed over many, carefully designed and controlled experiments. A one-off punt isn't going to prove anything, one way or another, but an ongoing series of trials might, as a body of evidence is built up. To this end, you might have something like "for each previous successive failure with a similar task take -2 to your roll" and "for each trial after the first you can choose a specific idea about the limitations/requirements, and if you succeed you get +1 whenever you leverage that feature". Basically, you build up a body of evidence one way or the other, so that, in the end, it's either impossible (with previous successes seen as wild flukes that came about because of unrecognised favourable circumstances) or fully understood (it becomes a spell, or a power, or an ability of some sort).
 

Balesir

Adventurer
You seem to be saying that there is no such thing as a purely metagame rule.
That's not quite what I meant, but I probably worded it poorly. I don't mean to say that the reasons must be the same with every instance of application of the rule(s), just that, at each instance of application, there will be an in-game reason for the development. With something like hit points, an instance of application comes only when the "additional" hit points are added, but for other rules there might be more repeated "instances".

In BW, a PC's abilities can advance with practice or training. They also advance from making checks in the game, but there are two sources of constraint on this: (1) because of "say yes or roll the dice", checks are only made when there are genuine dramatic stakes; (2) the rules are very strict that advancement can't occur unless checks are made at a range of difficulties, including (near-)auto-failure, so players have an incentive to manipulate their dice-pool resources and the situations they find themselves in to generate that range of tests, which itself helps achieve dramatic pacing and outcomes.
Right, but I don't imagine that the characters are thought of as saying to one another "hey, I just got better at X because drama!"... There will be some in-game imagined rationale - which may even very from player to player - for the character improving their abilities. This need not be the same for every time a character improves an ability, but I actually think it maps reasonably well to current ideas about what assists learning (actual attempts at the skill with good feedback and in a variety of different situations/circumstances, preferably broken up with other activities between trials).
 

I get the same feeling when I hear about "rulings, not rules". I always understood that to mean that the rules said: DM, now is the time to make a ruling. Instead what I'm getting from all the 5E posts is that the DM can override whatever's written for whatever meta-game considerations they have at the moment. Which seems like a terribly difficult way to DM! Not only do you have to keep all the NPCs in line, but you have to make sure you know how the players are feeling at any given time.

<snip>

When I read the 5E posts, "rulings not rules" seems to mean "the DM should take meta-game considerations into every bit of action resolution". Are the players bored? Then you succeed and the conflict ends. Are the players feeling like this is too easy? Then make it more difficult - add some HP, make an NPC save, overrule a PC ability.

Yup. It is amazing how impactful the arrangement of 3 little words can be. When I read "rulings not rules" was going to be the design ethos, my stomach turned and literally the first thing I thought was..."they're bringing back AD&D, GM force, and illusionism..." I could pretty well extrapolate (and I did) that we were going to see:

1) a deluge of hotly debated posts trying to clarify rules oddities and incoherent rules intersections...

2) outright advocating for the play procedure of player action declaration > mechanical resolution > derived outcomes that bind GM narration and propel play to be utterly subordinated to GM inclination (moment to moment)...

3) and a renaissance of metagame aversion (and all that comes with that).

If only would have been "rules and rulings", just 3 little words, much (seemingly) would have been different. But "rulings not rules" was no mistake. Those words have very specific intent and focus. And they carried through on those specific design aims so, by that measure, they produced a great system. And lots of folks couldn't be happier. I'm glad for them.

If I were running things that way I'd get burnt out in no time. I made my system so I trust it, and it hasn't let me down so far - well, during this last campaign, at least! I'm not afraid to attack the marrow of the system. (I'm considering going to a die-pool system instead of the bonus die system I have at the moment.)

Another great point. High prep and/or too many balls in the air are what kills the majority of GMs. I like my mental overhead to be intensive but focused like a laser beam on a few very specific components. Spread out too thin, especially with conflicts of interest, and I'll check out mentally (and certainly not produce my best stuff).
 

Sadras

Legend
Beyond that I can't help feeling that 5e as a game is fodder for the bunker mentality.

Funny, many of the the non-4e crowd viewed the 4e system as WoW for table-top. They never observed innovation just amalgamtion, pandering to the whims and likes of the MMO craze which was pulling away the potential RPG fanbase.

All innovation has been beaten out of the game.

I'm curious, besides skill checks, which I personally miss but I do incorporate into 5e, what innovations are you talking about - power cards and their ash heaps or graveyards?
Real innovation will only come once WotC stops pandering to Hindu's and Vegans and slays a few sacred cows.One such example, being the continuous and ridiculous growth of hit points which then requires the remaining mechanics to deal with ever increasing numbers. The last 3 versions of the game suffer from that the most, despite their innovations.

As much as 5e does incorporate one or two ideas into D&D, FUNDAMENTALLY it is simply a rehashing of old material, tropes, agendas, tone, etc.

Do you think forging wildly ahead (by WotC) with radically new ideas would have done the hobby/player-base any good?

Its a signpost which says "Don't try to make anything new and different out of D&D." No piece of culture can survive that for long.

And you think WotC, the playerbase, the hobby would better survive having fractured the community once more? Interesting, I think that is very optimistic of you...but

RPGs will go on, but D&D in its formal sense is done, 5e is a tombstone system.

...this sounds awfully pessimistic. My view on this edition is completely different to yours.

  • Just to mention that there are already 4e enthusiasts drafting power cards for the 5e classes in the Homebrew section of Enworld. I cannot count how many times I have heard 4e players mention that AEDU existed in earlier versions of D&D, so 5e class abilities are just the AEDU in a different format.
  • Plenty are incorporating their own versions of the 4e Skill Challenge Mechanics in 5e.
  • Replace Inspiration with Action Points, if you're missing it
  • Ability Improvements exist in 5e.
  • Monsters are simple in 5e and well most DMs I know tinker with monsters anyway. We all had to given the terribly unbalanced, untested 4e MM1. Didn’t they revise Orcus like 3 times? All I can say is thank god for SlyFlourish’s monster-damage table.
  • Save Ends was brought across from 4e to 5e.
  • A decent balance exists between the classes.
  • Mechanical alignment is optional as are non-good paladins.
  • 5e has rituals, conditions and you can use grid-play.
  • Replace Hit Dice with Surges.
  • Death saves, yup, they are there too.
  • The 4 Combat Roles. Well we had @GMforPowergamers and @pemerton and a great deal many inform everyone on another thread that those roles have always existed within D&D so I guess, 4e players would identify those roles within 5e. Funny how the OP lists the 4 Combat Roles as if they are exclusive to 4e. @Imaro, @SirAntoine and @BryonD would would certainly find this amusing.

If it is a tombstone edition because so much of 4e is in 5e, then I guess you're right, but then that would make 4e a tombstone edition given how much of it exists in 3.5e
 
Last edited:

BryonD

Hero
Yup. It is amazing how impactful the arrangement of 3 little words can be. When I read "rulings not rules" was going to be the design ethos, my stomach turned and literally the first thing I thought was..."they're bringing back AD&D, GM force, and illusionism..." I could pretty well extrapolate (and I did) that we were going to see:

1) a deluge of hotly debated posts trying to clarify rules oddities and incoherent rules intersections...

2) outright advocating for the play procedure of player action declaration > mechanical resolution > derived outcomes that bind GM narration and propel play to be utterly subordinated to GM inclination (moment to moment)...

3) and a renaissance of metagame aversion (and all that comes with that). .
If I get these three things online and a great system at my table, then I am a happy person.
 

BryonD

Hero
I get the same feeling when I hear about "rulings, not rules". I always understood that to mean that the rules said: DM, now is the time to make a ruling. Instead what I'm getting from all the 5E posts is that the DM can override whatever's written for whatever meta-game considerations they have at the moment. Which seems like a terribly difficult way to DM! Not only do you have to keep all the NPCs in line, but you have to make sure you know how the players are feeling at any given time.

I'm busy with my own game and HP damage is determined by fictional positioning - I have a little table with some keywords and numbers associated with them. So as DM I'm expected to say, "I think that is a "Killing Blow", so it deals 24 damage." Determining where the damage falls on the chart is obviously a judgement call - a ruling. That's what I think of when I hear about rulings: points in the rules where they ask the DM to make a ruling. B/X Reaction Rolls are like that.

When I read the 5E posts, "rulings not rules" seems to mean "the DM should take meta-game considerations into every bit of action resolution". Are the players bored? Then you succeed and the conflict ends. Are the players feeling like this is too easy? Then make it more difficult - add some HP, make an NPC save, overrule a PC ability.

If I were running things that way I'd get burnt out in no time. I made my system so I trust it, and it hasn't let me down so far - well, during this last campaign, at least! I'm not afraid to attack the marrow of the system. (I'm considering going to a die-pool system instead of the bonus die system I have at the moment.)

Two things I have always said:
1) I don't think any game system that tries to solve every problem for you will ever come close to be as good a game (or what *I* want) as a game system that presumes it can't anticipate every possibility.

2) 3E made no effort to protect you from running a bad game.

If you are making up rules on the fly, and being inconsistent and completely arbitrary, then you are to blame for your bad game. (The general "you", I don't mean you personally)
I agree that what you are saying sounds like crappy experiences.
But crashing a bike sounds like a crappy experience.

I could say that when I hear people talk about taking training wheels off bikes I think about all the new chances for people to crash.
But I don't think that, I think about how much more you can do with the bike now.
 

pemerton

Legend
the wizard I'm running ROCKS. I by no means optimized my character, almost the opposite, but I did pick the most effective spells I could find, just to see how potent they are. Plenty is my answer.

<snip>

So far my wizard is clearly the dominant force in combat, that which turns the tide.

<snip>

the wizard has put the hurt on every big bad, and done things like hold 2 owlbears largely at bay for a couple rounds so the party could take them out piecemeal etc.

<snip>

I think my character has a lot of 'stuff' on his sheet. I am not entirely sure what exactly 5e is pushing for action. I guess it wouldn't be as mechanically INTRICATE as 4e. Combat is less tactical, though you can of course still have interesting combats, it is just much more on the DM to engineer the pieces of that.
That's interesting. There was a long-running "low level wizards suck" thread (it may still be active) but it seems you haven't had the same experience.

I am guessing that the fighter probably doesn't have quite as much "stuff" on the character sheet as your wizard does.

Your "it is just much more on the DM" was a nice lead into [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s post, but having written out something about that it's quite long, so I'll make a separate post.
 

pemerton

Legend
This post was inspired by [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s thoughts about "rulings not rules".

In my 4e session today, I had to make a few judgment calls, mostly around divine discorporation: the players were fighting Lolth, and bloodied her, but didn't know about the discorporation rules.

The bloodying happened in this way: the PCs (for tactical reasons) had driven their Thundercloud tower through the Demonwebs and into the Abyssal void below. The fighter PC, standing on the roof of the tower about 10' or so above ground (web) level used Warrior's Urging to pull in Lolth. As she came in, she passed into one auto-damage zone, which left her about 50 hp above bloodied, and then - when she was drawn through the next zone - she would be bloodied.

I had already noted that when Lolth discorporated, she would die but the Queen of Chaos would be freed (my Lolth backstory: she became corrupted because, when she used her webs to hold the world together she encountered, and was possessed by, the Queen of Chaos at the bottom of the Abyss). So I rolled Bluff for Lolth and then got the players to roll Insight - two of them beat her (the paladin and the invoker/wizard) and so I told them they could see her smirking, and almost welcoming being bloodied - and then when they asked why I told them that they suddenly recalled (one in his capacity as a Marshall of Letherna, the other as a Sage of Ages with Memories of 1000 Lifetimes) that a deity who is bloodied might discorporate - and the Sage of Ages (bearing the Rod of Law and having made the better check, beating a Hard DC) could sense the Queen of Chaos about to break free.

That was the first need for a "ruling" - on making and getting info from a skill check.

The second came up because the trigger for Lolth's discorporation is being bloodied, and it takes place as "no action". The fighter has a power, Sudden Opportunity, that is a free action when an enemy becomes bloodied. I let him take his attack. He rolled a crit, which took another 100-odd points of Lolth, but still left her up.

That was the second need for a "ruling" - on the play sequence of resolution.

Because his roll was a 20, he was able to use his paragon path ability to recover a daily power - I ruled that he could recover Sudden Opportunity.

That was the third need for a "ruling" - on whether or not a daily power is expended, hence recoverable, when the roll to hit for it has been made and another ability triggered by that roll.

Sudden Opportunity is triggered on an enemy become bloodied or being critted. So I ruled that the fighter, having recovered it by critting, could use it again.

That was the fourth need for a "ruling".

The fighter rolled a 17, which was enough to hit (he needed 15 or better: +31 based, +2 for combat advantage from Deadly Draw, _1 because Lolth was subject to the Battlefield Archer ranger's Hunter's Quarry vs AC 49). This did enough damage to bring Lolth down to 120-odd hp.

The paladin player had, in the meantime, declared that he wanted to use his Ring of Tenacious Will - which has a "no action" ability that allows it's wearer to hang on when normally s/he would be killed - to instead make Lolth hang on rather than discorporate: in effect to externalise rather than internalise the ring's power. I asked him if he recalled how he had got the ring - in particular, how he had called on Pazrael (Pazuzu) for aid. With that prompting from me, he did. I said that to "externalise" it, he would need Pazrael's help. He was happy to do that. I also pointed that this would destroy the ring, costing him 5 surges (because his Surge base would shift from a +9 CHA bonus back to a +4 CON bonus) which would leave him with exactly zero remaining. The player replied "I'm a Questing Knight - we all die sooner!" - no "or later" was forthcoming.

Then, to show that I wasn't just a bad illusionist GM, I pulled out my slip of paper from my campaign notes that had written on it "Pazuzu may appear to the PCs" - and so Pazuzu appeared, and helped the paladin externalise the power of the ring.

So this was the fifth "ruling" - that the paladin could do this as a free action and have Pazuzu appear and help him. (Though there is well-established precedent in our game for PCs permanently burning magic items for thematically related but not canonical effects.)

Now Pazuzu's motive for doing this was to stop the Queen of Chaos benefiting from the demise of the Demonweb and hence the unleashing of the ultimate chaos of the Abyss, which only her webs were keeping at bay, per the Underdark sourcebook. That Lolth's webs had remade and held creation together as part of the Dawn War was a well-established detail in our campaign that the players knew (and so they knew that in killing her and wrecking the Demonweb they were taking a risk). The Queen of Chaos, on the other hand, only the sorcerer knew about up until now, as it was a pact with her that had established him as a Demonskin Adept back in the lead-up to Paragon tier. (And as a result he had her symbol branded on the inside of his eyelids - which is what causes him to become blind when he sees glimpses of the Abyss, his 16th level path feature.) Last session I had hinted, and this session I confirmed to the player (and PC), via telepathic communication from Lolth/the Queen of Chaos as she was on the verge of discorporation, that all this time he had been chanelling chaos energy from her (especially via Demonsoul bolts) so that he could come and kill Lolth and free her.

So the legacy of an old ruling, about the fiction of paragon path acquisition, returned to support further backstory.

Also, to prove I wasn't a completely arbitrary GM, I pulled a slip of paper out of my GM folder, from its somewhat tattered state clearly written a while ago (from memory, probably about 2 or 3 years ago) and showed it to the players, saying "Pazuzu may appear to the PCs" and declared myself to be playing it an interrupt speed. The players were amused, although the player of the dwarf fighter did point out that I might have dozens of such bits of paper with all manner of plot point written on them.

In any event, it was now established that Lolth's discorporation was sufficiently delayed that the fighter could complete his pull (from warrior's urging) and take his attack - which hit again (I think 15 exactly was rolled) and brought her down to 50-ish hp left. The paladin's turn was next - as Lolth was marked by him he used Winter's Arrival to teleport into a flank of her with the fighter, attacked with a reasonable-damage power needing only a 12 to hit (compared to the fighter he had +2 to hit for her being bloodied, and a +1 bonus from his Blessed Weapon) and rolled a 14, and did 60-ish damage, enough to drop Lolth to -3.

And so she died rather than discorporated. And before her turn came up (which would have been next). So I didn't need to rule on how Lolth/the Queen of Chaos might break free of the influence of the Ring of Tenacious Will and Pazuzu.

Her dying telepathic projection, in Elvish, to the sorcerer (who, while a Demonskin Adept and Emergent Primordial is also a votary of Corellon) was "Tell Corellon . . . I . . . always . . . lo----". And then she was gone. The sorcerer player completed it as "loved him", the invoker/wizard player as "loathed his guts". Lolth's last words were my final ruling for this particular episode.

There were other "rulings not rules" in the session, though the above is the stand-out. Before the episode just described, when the PCs drove their Thundercloud Tower down through the demonweb, I had to decide what happened. Looking up Q1 (a very hard module to reference quickly), I read out to the group its description of the space beyond the demonwebs - "A player who steps of the paths of webbing is swept away into the howling winds of the Abyss". So I flipped through my copy of Manual of the Planes to find something suitable for these howling winds and decided that a Vacuum rift (levelled from 14th to 28th) and an Entropic Rift (levelled from 22nd to 30th) should do the job. Some quick calculations showed that the Tower would lose 35 hp/round while stuck in the rift like a bath-plug; and after Lolth was killed the elf, paladin and subsequently dwarf all got sucked into the edge of it, and the elf and dwarf into the Far Realm, to be spat back out as helpless protoplasmic mutates.

I also had to rule on how subtle Pazuzu could be. He wants the Rod of Law, and so secretly attacked the invoker/wizard to try and get it. I rolled a very high Bluff check (50-something) for him, which meant that no one but the invoker noticed his use of Soul Corruption to try and dominate the PC. Because he was adjacent to the PC, and because that is a ranged power, it triggered an OA which the invoker/wizard hit (though he needed a 20 to hit, and it would not have been a crit, and he missed). Pazuzu then pointed out that he'd been attacked "unprovoked" and used his Pestilence power to shift (fly) away, which also happens to let him attack the PC with a poison cloud.

The only evidence for his attacks the other PCs had were the invoker/wizard's protestations, and there was a bit more confusion and inaction before battle was fully joined with him by the party. (And partway through that battle we had to finish, though the invoker/wizard has taken control of Pazuzu - by using his Ring of Wizardry to recharge his encounter domination power, and then landing it using his Eye of Vecna to get a +10 to hit buff - and is planning to have him fly into the above-mentioned Abyssal rift).

That ended up being a longer description than I anticipated when I started.

The ruling about Pazuzu's subtlety was easy - Bluff skill check combined with a power with the charm and psychic keywords (so no overt manifesation - at least until he kept it up and bloodied the PC!).

The ruling about the Abyssal rift was fairly easy, too: the players knew they were doing something drastic rending the demonwebs, and I was quite overt about flipping through my copy of MoP and noting down my two rift/fissure effects.

The big ones, obviously, were around Lolth's discorporation. The game's timing rules around free actions and no actions (which discorporation is) have always been a bit hand-wavey, so I was going to have to rule. The action was driven mostly by the players - the paladin player (remembering past practice) nominated the externalisation of his Ring effect, and that sort of control over life and death is a part of his PC's schtick (as a Marshall of Letherna). The rulings on Sudden Opportunity's recharge and re-trigger could probably have gone either way, but my reasons for ruling the way I did were very overt at the table: if a player is worried about Lolth discorporating before he can kill her, and looks down his sheet and sees a triggered daily power that could stop that, then rolls a crit and has a recharge ability that could let him reuse it, and the rules permit that interpretation, then I am going to go with it!

In the fiction, what happened? Lolth, prone (due to previous action) but angry scuttles across her demonwebs to attack the PCs, who are 15' above web-level in their half-"submerged fighter". As she does so, she enters the sorcerer's zones, which scour here with thunder plus the Swords of the Marilith, causing her to begin discorporation (against Lolth's will, perhaps, but strongly willed by the Queen of Chaos latent within her). As she starts to discorporate the dwarf is laying into her with his hammer, again (the crit) and again (the second Sudden Opportunity) and then Pazuzu suddenly appears and takes the paladin's ring from him, and uses its power over life and death to delay the discorporation and the Queen of Chaos's emergence.

Lolth closes on the fighter, trying to gain the upperhand, but he continues to lay into her with Overwhelm, his hammer (the attack for Warrior's Urging) and then the paladin teleport in a shroud of ice adjacent to her and stabs her (like Sam against Shelob) with his khopesh, destroying her physical form before she can discorporate and the Queen of Chaos manifest herself at the chaotic heart of the Abyss.

This fiction, and the GMing motivations that were driving the rulings that enabled it (ie I'll read the rules in the way that permits the players to use their resources to achieve the dramatic outcome they are pushing for), was clear to everyone at the table. It didn't feel to me like there were any illusions.

I'm interested in any thoughts around techniques, agendas, illusionism,"rulings not rules", etc.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top