D&D 4E Forked Thread: 4e And 4th Wall, was multiclassing - is Arcane Initiate too powerful?

[Lizard]

Well, I deleted the picking on pieces (marking is impossible to rationalize? really?),

Really. REALLY really.

Mostly due to the "One mark automatically supersedes another". Again, there's an obvious game balance reason, but there's no internally consistent, universal, model I have found which explains various possible combinations of mark and re-mark.

That all the "simulationist" putting together modifier after modifier and constant fiddling with minutae slows things down incredibly and exposes the inner workings of the game, putting a severe strain on suspension of disbelief. As a DM, my job is partially to narrate the mechanics, to turn the die rolls and hit points into flavorful descriptive text that makes the world come alive, and previous editions fought back, constantly interrupting the narrative with meaningless trivia and rules-lawyering. 4e works for me, rather than against me.

While playing "reverse the quote" is cute, it doesn't answer the question. Explain "Come and get it!" to me.

Here's the situation: There's a Goblin Archer secure behind cover. Twenty feet away, a fighter makes a rude gesture at him. The Archer has a powerful ranged attack and a secure position; he can hurt the fighter very easily without exposing himself. Instead, he *automatically* leaves cover and runs to the fighter, even if he has no melee attack capability.

If you reply "Well, goblins are dumb...", make it an Int 30 Mind Flayer.

(And if you don't think a power which basically forces an Artillery type monster to engage in melee won't be used for precisely that, you haven't played much D&D...)

 

[Storminator]

I've been operating under the assumption that the sales rules are default rules for adventurers hocking unwanted goods, and that only someone intentionally making hay on an internet forum would read them to not permit exceptions for sales roleplayed or contextualized in such a way that its logical for someone to pay a different amount.

Its like arguing that in 3e, a 10 foot chain is always 30 gold pieces, NO EXCEPTIONS. Buying a chain from the newly opened Super Chain Discount Emporium? 30 gold pieces. Buying a chain from a slimy duergar adventurer "supplier" who lives in the Underdark and is the only person with a chain within 10 miles of monster infested tunnels when you need the chain RIGHT NOW and the duergar knows it? 30 gold pieces, 'cause that's what the book says.

I figure there can't really be rules for everything. Those things that aren't really important, but have to be addressed, get quick crude rules. Since most adventuring parties are more interested in fighting monsters instead of chatting with merchants, fighting gets all the rules and chatting gets the shaft. But if you were really, really interested in the intricacies of selling scrolls, you could build a campaign around that. In that case, those quick and crude rules would be wholly inadequate, as you'd expect.

I've found that adding greater complexity and realism to the buying and selling of items means I can't have my players do it offline. It must be done at the table then, and it's a bigger pain.

PS

 

[Lizard]

I've been operating under the assumption that the sales rules are default rules for adventurers hocking unwanted goods, and that only someone intentionally making hay on an internet forum would read them to not permit exceptions for sales roleplayed or contextualized in such a way that its logical for someone to pay a different amount.

Its like arguing that in 3e, a 10 foot chain is always 30 gold pieces, NO EXCEPTIONS. Buying a chain from the newly opened Super Chain Discount Emporium? 30 gold pieces. Buying a chain from a slimy duergar adventurer "supplier" who lives in the Underdark and is the only person with a chain within 10 miles of monster infested tunnels when you need the chain RIGHT NOW and the duergar knows it? 30 gold pieces, 'cause that's what the book says.

I'd consider this true except for the bit where the rules go out of their way to state that no one will buy ritual scrolls for more than half price. The authors felt that this was important enough to call out in a colored box. That says, to me, "This is an important part of game balance, not a default to let you get on with the game when you don't want to worry about it." (I am going to go further, and guess this was due to a playtest campaign or session where someone opened Rituals-R-Us.)

There IS mention of using Diplomacy to haggle with merchants elsewhere in 4e, so there's some implication that bargaining is possible for most things. Apparently, though, the sole purpose for the rules allowing PCs to make ritual scrolls is to let them "stock up" on them, since a scroll can be used in half the time of a normal ritual. It's like buying a compiler and being told that the license permits use of the programs you write only on your own system.

 

[Cadfan]

Lizard- is it your contention that the designers of D&D would feel that you were "playing wrong" if you permitted your players to have their characters spend time researching a buyer for a magic item, then selling it to the buyer for a higher than stereotypical cost?

 

[keterys]

Then change the martial power source to some mystical power source, if you have trouble explaining things within a narrative and fun context. Poof, all explained, with no harm done.

 

[Nail]

Explain "Come and get it!" to me.

Gladly.

Here's the situation: There's a Goblin Archer secure behind cover. Twenty feet away...

...he's safe. Look at Come and Get It again. "Close Burst 3" is the relevant detail, keeping that goblin archer safe (as he's 4 squares away).

 

[bganon]

While playing "reverse the quote" is cute, it doesn't answer the question. Explain "Come and get it!" to me.

The original thread-fork was more generally about breaking the fourth wall, but whatever.

In the end, I don't really care that much if I can't explain every little combat action. I'd rather focus on whether the flow of overall combat itself makes sense; in the end I feel I can create greater realism that way. If I really wanted a combat system that made sense in great detail I sure wouldn't be using one where damage is tracked as a single number of "hit points".

But to address this particular issue: the goblin is dumb, the illithid stumbles forward due to a clever feint, or whatever. But your examples are actually corner cases: if you've let the fighter get within 15 feet (not 20) of artillery/controllers the fight's already over and it doesn't really matter what power they get to use. In most encounters the fighter should be more effective using "Come and get it" in the first few rounds to draw away soldiers, brutes, and skirmishers, so the party strikers can get a clear shot and gank the artillery.

 

[Lizard]

Lizard- is it your contention that the designers of D&D would feel that you were "playing wrong" if you permitted your players to have their characters spend time researching a buyer for a magic item, then selling it to the buyer for a higher than stereotypical cost?

Pretty much. Especially when they make an effort to make sure you know this would be a Bad Thing.

I see 4e as much more tightly focused and balanced than 3e. It's clear that "The Math" is extremely integrated into the game, and without a few months of running it under my belt, I am hesitant to make any changes to the system. It's like a Jenga tower...one wrong move, and it all comes crashing down. I feel very comfortable winging in in 3e; 4e, not so much. Again, it gets back to the fact the "gaminess" is right out there and in your face.

 

[Lizard]

Gladly.



...he's safe. Look at Come and Get It again. "Close Burst 3" is the relevant detail, keeping that goblin archer safe (as he's 4 squares away).

This, by you, is a refutation?

OK, 15 feet, then. Same problem.

 

[Lizard]

The original thread-fork was more generally about breaking the fourth wall, but whatever.

Well, I'm trying to get away from the specifics of economics and into the general "game vs. simulation" issue.

CAGI is a very good example of the problem. It is, in essence, a magic effect: All monsters within burst 3 teleport to a square adjacent to the fighter. This is an oversimplification, I admit, as the errata makes it a Pull effect and this implies some limits (though it creates some issues...as written, you could use it to force a monster to cross a pit, burning terrain, etc (yeah, he gets a save, but if he fails...) but the essence is that the fighter says "I use CAGI!" and the DM dutifully arranges every monster inside of Burst 3 adjacent to the fighter, without regard to their intelligence, tactics, powers, previous position, etc. It basically screams "This is a game!" in a way that cannot be ignored.

In the end, I don't really care that much if I can't explain every little combat action. I'd rather focus on whether the flow of overall combat itself makes sense; in the end I feel I can create greater realism that way.

If "overall combat" is the sum of actions that don't make sense, the overall combat doesn't make sense. If the tide of battle is turned because the archers left their posts for no good reason, the rogue hurled a dagger at a flying ghost and pinned it to the air, or caused an immobilized creature to move 4 squares by being charismatic, the thing as a whole doesn't make much sense, either. Any specific, individual, thing can be dealt with easily enough, and, again, I don't want to go into nitpicky detail -- it's the grand totality of them all that grates on me. If once every two or three fights, you have an "I steal his PANTS!" moment, well, I can easily live with it. If it's more like once a round...that's too much.

In most encounters the fighter should be more effective using "Come and get it" in the first few rounds to draw away soldiers, brutes, and skirmishers, so the party strikers can get a clear shot and gank the artillery.

Really? Because I'd think a totally irresistable forced movement power that affected all creatures in a burst would be used mostly to get people out of cover -- so that the strikers can gank them. When I saw CAGI, that's the first use I thought of for it. Get the damn archers and casters down from the trees and out in the open.