4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[phloog]

I think there are a lot of issues with 4e (healing, inorganic feel, etc., ad nauseum) but I like it much better than that PoS 3e rules overload. Each edition has issues (as covered in the other thread) but why does criticizing mean to some that it's a black/white (love/hate) relationship?

Don't get me worng, I like a good internet rant as well as the next person, maybe more. Some of this stuff is beyond silly though.

And I apologize if I've implied that I somehow HATE 4e...I don't have enough spare energy to use up on hating something like a game system. It just doesn't really appeal to me for use in my current campaign because of things like we're discussing.

It should also be noted that I don't play 3e either, but True20 (which also has its issues!)

 

[RefinedBean]

Wow...seems like a major attempt to shut down debate.

Note: When you point out something that others are doing and then say 'We're all better than that', you're really saying that YOU are better than the others, sort of 'above the fray'. I'm enjoying reading most of this discussion, including the posts that don't agree with me, and I've never felt the need to say that we're all somehow too good to argue one side or the other.

Following it with the 'Aheheh' reinforces this.

I'm not trying to shut down ALL debate, just inefficient posturing on both sides about what's martial, mundane, mystical, magical, blah blah blah. There will never be a consensus and frankly (at least here on ENworld), it almost always is centered around some sort of edition war, which I'm fairly sick of.

And what I'm really saying is really only known to me, hrm? Let's not be too presumptuous here. I'm obviously not above the fray if I continue to post here, right? However, I do like to make sure we all realize that we have common ground in these rather ludicrous discussions.

The aheheh was just a reference to a favorite character in literature of mine. I can see how it came off as slightly dismissive, though. Apologies!

 

[Andor]

Swing and a miss. Swarms, slimes and oozes live to attack, drawing them in is not very challenging. It would not work on something that cannot move. The power says they must shift IF POSSIBLE. Something that cannot move cannot shift. Grimlocks engaged in a fight with the PCs are enemies, it works on them just fine. It would not work on rabbits or clams, they are not "enemies in burst that you can see", same with the skeleton butler.

That seems like an awfully big restriction, if the power doesn't grant a movement ability the creature lacks, are you saying that CAGI only works on enemies that natively have the ability to shift 2 spaces at a time? That would mean it only works on... um... What can shift multiple squares at will? Grimlocks can't, yet you say it works on them. Perhaps the power does grant a movement ability the target doesn't normally posses...

If my fighter is trying to kill rabbits or clams he doesn't count as an enemy to them, and thus vice versa? Killing them is not a hostile action? So a clam bake is technically a 'friendly fire' incident?

Or is that they would rather run than fight? If so you seem to be saying a fighter could not use CAGI on frightened human peasants or goblin children.

 

[Thasmodious]

I'm just going to say it. High levels of immersion and people who require it were not a priority of 4E. It was a design choice to dump support for that playstyle and those players. They decided that to most players, it just isn't that big of a deal, and I think this was a correct decision. Pleasing the fanatics would have required too many sacrifices to overall gameplay.

Yeah, that's it, you nailed it. All TRUE roleplayers must hate 4e since TRUE IMMERSION has been dumped in favor of a tactical minis video game. TRUE IMMERSION comes from rules, not the players of the game. No one who plays 4e can be TRUE HARDCORE GAMERS, since the system doesn't, in any way, support a playstyle that relies on the imagination for immersion.

You really think immersion comes from rules telling you to immerse? "Roll a d20, on a 12+ you are immersed, no save." Many of us TRUE HARDCORE GAMERS find 4e more immersive than 3e because the rules get out of the way and let us play and the system encourages the DM to be more fluid, to say 'yes', to adjudicate on the fly. It's comments like yours that piss people off and keep this nonsense going in unconstructive ways.

 

[Scribble]

Or is that they would rather run than fight? If so you seem to be saying a fighter could not use CAGI on frightened human peasants or goblin children.

DM: Ok you defeat the last of your goblin foes, leaving nothing but frightened children, and peasants...

PC: Hrmmm just to be a dick I use CAGI on one of the goblin kids... Garlock steps forward... lowering his blade and prettending to slip as he does so... (roll roll roll a hit!)

DM: Ok... man you ARE a dick... One of the goblin children sees Garlock "slip" the terrified goblin hoping this might be a chance to escape with his life thrusts forward with a blade hoping beyond anything he might kill you and escape... Unfortunately he's stepped right into garlock's plan...

PC: "Now hear me children... You are my prisoners, and will do as I say!"

DM: Dick.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This whole "come and get it" thing is people splitting hairs over little details. The thing is, the game itself doesn't care about the little details. It even says so. If the little details are important to you, you either have to find a way to deal with it or find another game to play. Come and get it works fine within the system.

 

[RefinedBean]

If my fighter is trying to kill rabbits or clams he doesn't count as an enemy to them, and thus vice versa? Killing them is not a hostile action? So a clam bake is technically a 'friendly fire' incident?

Or is that they would rather run than fight? If so you seem to be saying a fighter could not use CAGI on frightened human peasants or goblin children.

The grizzled dragonborn fighter stood 10 feet away from the rabbit, eyes steady, sword level.

"Come and get it," he sneered. "Come and get it if you DARE, you miserable little..."

And with a roar, the rabbit attacked!

I could get behind a campaign like that. Four regular characters, and a fighter with obvious mental problems.

 

[Thasmodious]

That seems like an awfully big restriction, if the power doesn't grant a movement ability the creature lacks, are you saying that CAGI only works on enemies that natively have the ability to shift 2 spaces at a time? That would mean it only works on... um... What can shift multiple squares at will? Grimlocks can't, yet you say it works on them. Perhaps the power does grant a movement ability the target doesn't normally posses...

Now ladies and gentlemen, THIS is a strawman! With this nonsense, I guess the easiest way to beat a castle would be to declare it an enemy and stand within 15' of a corner, then use CAGI to draw the walls off its foundation and collapse the castle! You could at least pretend to be serious.

If my fighter is trying to kill rabbits or clams he doesn't count as an enemy to them, and thus vice versa? Killing them is not a hostile action? So a clam bake is technically a 'friendly fire' incident?

The DMG which, along with the other 4e books, you clearly haven't read covers the defintion 'enemy' with the "legitimate targets" rule. Keeping stuffing that straw, its working great for you. You don't, at all, sound like someone with no clue what they are talking about

Or is that they would rather run than fight? If so you seem to be saying a fighter could not use CAGI on frightened human peasants or goblin children.

Yes, that's exactly what I (and the rules) am saying.

 

[Scribble]

I kind iof feel like using the power and not narrating it in ways that make sense (to your game and group) is a bit like running an OoTS style campaign... Like when the Paladins use Detect Evil, and just yell it out showing they understand that they are part of a game.

The Detect evil power of a paladin seems silly if used in that style... "Scaning for evil captain!"

But if yo do it more in a way that works narratively it seems cool... I use detect evill... "You sense the overwhelming presence of evil in this creature... So much so you're almost overcome by nausia..."

 

[Andor]

Yeah, that's it, you nailed it. All TRUE roleplayers must hate 4e since TRUE IMMERSION has been dumped in favor of a tactical minis video game. TRUE IMMERSION comes from rules, not the players of the game. No one who plays 4e can be TRUE HARDCORE GAMERS, since the system doesn't, in any way, support a playstyle that relies on the imagination for immersion.

You really think immersion comes from rules telling you to immerse? "Roll a d20, on a 12+ you are immersed, no save." Many of us TRUE HARDCORE GAMERS find 4e more immersive than 3e because the rules get out of the way and let us play and the system encourages the DM to be more fluid, to say 'yes', to adjudicate on the fly. It's comments like yours that piss people off and keep this nonsense going in unconstructive ways.

When the system actively interferes with immersion then yes, it does not seem to be as geared towards deep roleplaying as ones that do not actively interfere with immersion.

GM: The Goblin strikes at you. Take 9 damage.
PC: That bloodies me. Ok. Thaglec stumbles back clutching his wounded arm then he..
GM: No, I don't want to call that a wound in case it gets healed by an inspiring word.
PC: What?
GM: If it gets healed by the cleric, then it was a wound. If it get healed by the warlord, or resting it was just shaken morale.
PC: But Thaglec is a foppish swashbuckler, when do I get to make quips about ruining my wardrobe while running people through?
GM: Just wait till after the battle then retcon in your dialouge.
PC: ...

Or better yet please explain to me how a PC would describe from a first person perspective what it feels like to get healed by a healing strike from a cleric of Pelor. Remember that it only works if it draws blood (or shakes morale).