D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Aegeri]

I'm still waiting for Aegeri to respond to WotC's ruling on grab. That should be interesting.

Yes it will, because I'm about to quote the same source - Customer Service - in support of my argument. Also note that I asked them a precise question and got two answers that both support my argument, but both suggest the DM can houserule it to follow the restrictions on grab. Most importantly, both acknowledge my argument is correct: The power does not have a restriction and so can be used to grab targets. This would make sense, as the brawler fighters class features and powers often rely on having grabbed targets. If this is useless in a wide host of solo and other encounters with huge plus enemies, that's just poor design on wizards part. That is of course, not the case.

Before going into this, Customer Service =/ Wizard of the Coast. They are actually an outsourced group independent of Wizards. They are also frequently confused about things on how rules like grappling actually work and are by far not a definitive source. None the less I asked them precise questions (as opposed to yours) and I've quoted their responses below. I wanted to make sure, as you got so excited about it initially, to make sure I showed you a contradictory answer. In reality, I don't regard CS as anything more than another persons opinion and in fact - your own opinion about grab in this thread has just as much weight to me as theirs. As you asked them though, I felt the need to pose my question to them just to demonstrate that your answer from CS isn't as definitive as you think.

Of course you can now admit you were incorrect - if you believe CS is an official source of rules - or you can realize what I have that CS isn't actually definitive at all. If you ask me, the opinion you gave in this thread is just as good an opinion as the one I got from customer support. The difference is you seem to take them more seriously than I do, so you've got the problem with the below two responses you now need to address: Not me. I've proven my point.

Hi, I am wondering if Grappling Strike allows a fighter to grab a target that is more than two size categories larger than himself. The power specifically states in the target line that it targets "one creature", without the size restriction that the normal grab action (available to all characters) has. The effect on a hit says that you grab the target, as you're not using the grab power does this circumvent the restrictions on the grab action. Especially as grappling strike does not have any of the restrictions on its target line or similar that the grab attack does.

The first response:

Specifically, it doesn't state that you cannot, but I would greatly suggest that you do follow the guidelines under the "Grab" action. This is, of course, up to your DM, and he or she is the final arbiter on such things. Good gaming!

He suggests following the rules for grab, despite the fact my argument is correct: The power doesn't make any such restriction whatsoever. So in the interest of actually getting a coherent answer, I ask a 100% specific question that cannot be easily wiggled out of. There is some ambiguity in that response if the RAW suggests following the rules for grab or not, or if indeed it's a "fiction" thing. Much like grabbing a swarm.

That would seem to indicate the grab action applies to an attack when it isn't being used. Because that is an action, it's an attack and therefore has its own target and hit line - with the restriction clearly stated (especially so in Heroes of the Forgotten Lands, where it is made as a power directly). The reason I ask this is because powers that grab don't seem to assume the grab attack (which is its own thing), they assume that when you hit you've inflicted the grabbed condition. Take Bigby's Icy Hand as an example, the power says that you grab the target but it isn't assuming the rules for the grab attack. When you look at the sustain minor of the power, it clearly has to work by assuming the target is grabbed by the power (not following the rules for grab) because it states when you have "grabbed" a target with the hand you can use it. Grabbed as a status effect doesn't have the restrictions that the grab action (as an attack) does.

My assumption (as the DM btw), is that powers tell you how their effects work and if the grappling strike power was limited it would state so in its target line. This is because the common grab action, is a separate attack and has its own target line - it's not a condition (Grabbed is the condition). Basically I'm wondering if "grab" means it inflicts the condition grabbed or follows the attack called grab. You seem to be implying that a power that grabs is just another way of making a grab attack - yet the power in question never states it has the same restrictions and checks. This is rather like following two entirely different attacks at once, even though you've made one attack that has already specified its target and conditions.

So there is no escape now. I either get a "Yes, when a power says you grab the target you follow the rules for the attack called grab or it actually means the target is grabbed, or the power does not have that restriction by RAW".

The power isn't restricted, and you'll be able to grab something you usually can't. So according to the rules, it works. But some groups, would think that's odd having a gnome grabbing a huge dragon and throwing it against a wall, in which case the DM would be the one who has the final answer.

So the DM can houserule it if he wants, but according to two customer service individuals my original argument was 100% correct. The power doesn't have the restrictions that grab does. I left no wiggle room here or interpretation room, unlike P1NBACKs original question that didn't actually address the argument we were making. I asked specifically if the specific power in question allowed you to ignore the normal rules and both said yes, "but" with the DM making a decision. But both heavily implied the RAW was they did not have the size restrictions of the grab attack. This makes sense, because as I said repeatedly, grab as an attack is not a condition period. Grabbed is the condition. Grab is a power.

Also, I have two CS sources saying the power isn't restricted and that it's up to the DM if he enforces any size restriction. But the actual RAW according to the more specific response I got was that those powers do not have the restrictions of the power called grab - particularly because I was 100% specific in my question and wording.

Also to Draco, you need to look at the compendium more:

Being grabbed means a creature is immobilized. Unless otherwise noted, a grab lasts until the end of the grabber’s next turn, and the grabber can sustain the grab as a minor action and end it as a free action.

Certain circumstances end a grab: if the grabber is affected by a condition that prevents it from taking opportunity actions, if either the grabber or the creature it’s grabbing moves far enough away that
the grabbed creature is no longer in the grabber’s reach, or if the grabbed creature escapes. See also “Escape” and “Grab”

Grabbed Rules Condition in the compendium.

So basically my interpretation was correct and those who think another power, that is not related to the one being used somehow restricts it are still incorrect IMO. The second answer there is 100% definitive that the rules do not support the restriction being applied to other powers that grab. Albeit both CS rulings I got said it was common to houserule in the restrictions from the grab power, but that was not the RAW (as both conceded the power doesn't have a restriction). Even if you disagree with me this is correct, the very fact by asking the right question I can get the answer I wanted from CS should give you a lot of pause before you go throwing around CS as being definitive in future

So once again, P1NBACK, show me specifically on the power grappling strike on the target line of the power grappling strike where it has the restriction on size. Not on an unrelated generic attack power that all classes have. Show me the size restriction on the grab effect, on the specific power, on the target line of grappling strike. If it isn't there, then a Brawler Fighter can grab a gargantuan dragon by RAW and both CS answers confirm that.

Also for the record, I asked them about grabbing a swarm as well. The answer was similar to the first grab answer. That yes you can do it by RAW, but that the DM has the right to decide you can't if he felt like it. So in other words, pretty much as I've asserted these powers work the way I interpreted them to work. CS just provides that the DM may decide otherwise in situations that don't make sense to him: But this doesn't change the RAW one iota.

 

[LostSoul]

Older editions were every bit as ridiculous as later editions. D&D has never, ever been even remotely rigorous in its treatment of reality.

Yep. The big difference is that the pre-WotC editions expected the DM to make judgement calls to reinforce the fiction and maintain play balance. You don't need specific rules saying "Swarms" can or can not be grabbed or anything in-between when you have a rule saying that someone at the table has the authority to decide such things.

This doesn't mean that reality (or some simulation of reality) is enforced. It does mean that there is a lot more content coming from the group. One DM's game is going to be different from another's and the choices players make will be different. I think that the moment of judgement is very important; it's why you play with people - and not just any people, but these people.

 

[Aegeri]

If you read the response from CS and indeed how they interpreted my question about swarms it's clear that the rules say one thing - that covers everything - then leaves a lot of room for the DM. It's clear by RAW that grappling strike lets you grab anything as it doesn't have a restriction on the size of creature it can grab by RAW. But even both CS answers while supporting that idea said the DM could enforce the restriction of the normal grab action if he wanted.

This is IMO a fair way of dealing with things - not something I would ever actually bother doing though as I've explained earlier.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yep. The big difference is that the pre-WotC editions expected the DM to make judgement calls to reinforce the fiction and maintain play balance. You don't need specific rules saying "Swarms" can or can not be grabbed or anything in-between when you have a rule saying that someone at the table has the authority to decide such things.

This doesn't mean that reality (or some simulation of reality) is enforced. It does mean that there is a lot more content coming from the group. One DM's game is going to be different from another's and the choices players make will be different. I think that the moment of judgement is very important; it's why you play with people - and not just any people, but these people.

Yeah, the thing is I see no indication that 4e is specifically intended NOT to work the same way. I know many people have reached this conclusion but I don't actually see where such a conclusion is supported. The designers attempted to make things more predictable and easier to consistently adjudicate. That doesn't mean they intended the rules to straightjacket people. In fact one could look at the whole exception based design concept as being intended to FACILITATE this kind of thing.

I would also note that while the attitude towards rules consistency might have been more lax in 'the old days', the arguments for and against consistency were identical.

 

[Argyle King]

Which game would that be?

GURPS

It is not completely devoid of rules which favor a playable game over reality, but, as a whole, it tends to favor realism.

I should mention it is possible to tweak the system to be less realistic. The system provides many optional rules for ratcheting realism up or down. It's possible to adjust the system to suit just about any taste, but -even at its most unrealistic moments- it is my opinion that it still tries to pay more lip service to reality than D&D.

 

[LostSoul]

Yeah, the thing is I see no indication that 4e is specifically intended NOT to work the same way. I know many people have reached this conclusion but I don't actually see where such a conclusion is supported. The designers attempted to make things more predictable and easier to consistently adjudicate. That doesn't mean they intended the rules to straightjacket people. In fact one could look at the whole exception based design concept as being intended to FACILITATE this kind of thing.

I agree. There are ways to make that moment of judgement more obvious in the game, though, so when the DM says, "You can't grab a swarm" the player is ready for it.

 

[Hussar]

GURPS

It is not completely devoid of rules which favor a playable game over reality, but, as a whole, it tends to favor realism.

I should mention it is possible to tweak the system to be less realistic. The system provides many optional rules for ratcheting realism up or down. It's possible to adjust the system to suit just about any taste, but -even at its most unrealistic moments- it is my opinion that it still tries to pay more lip service to reality than D&D.

Totally agree with this. Of course, that's why quoting selected comments makes things a bit tricky. I was obviously speaking about D&D in response to comments that particular versions of D&D were more into realism than others. There are games that are more into realism, GURPS, Harn, Pirates and Privateers, just to name three off the top of my head and I'm sure there are others. But D&D? Not all that interested in realism at all.

LostSoul - I think, honestly, this is more of an Internet thing than a table thing. Although, IME, the lack of guidance on rulings in older versions of D&D was not a good thing. What it actually led to was table paralysis as players argued endlessly with DM rulings.

Sure, it works great if the DM rules fairly and the players are willing to accept DM rulings all the time. But, considering the flaming rows that happened around my table, the more comprehensive ruleset was MORE than welcome.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree. There are ways to make that moment of judgement more obvious in the game, though, so when the DM says, "You can't grab a swarm" the player is ready for it.

Well, honestly, the way I look at it I don't want to provide an exhaustive list of every thing I feel like I might ever rule differently because of the situation. It isn't a finite bounded list.

My house rule if one insists on considering it that is "I use rule 0 sometimes". People should be aware of the possibility. If I'm starting a new group or people join that have played before then I'll explain how I operate. It is pretty rare that anyone is going to feel 'hosed'. There will always be a reasonable number of options they can exercise and if one guy is not ideally suited to solve a given problem he'll likely be extra good at the next one. It all works out.

I think I've had one house rule in the whole time 4e has been going anyway, and that is one trivial little thing that half of everyone uses besides me. Mostly you can tune how things go by what creatures you use, customization, etc.

 

[LostSoul]

Well, honestly, the way I look at it I don't want to provide an exhaustive list of every thing I feel like I might ever rule differently because of the situation. It isn't a finite bounded list.

I think that the problem exists in both cases (if the rules don't say you can't grab a swarm, then you can; likewise, if the rules provide an exhaustive list of every possible difference based on the situation). Both focus on the rules instead of the "fiction". Now, it's not that the "fiction" has to be realistic or a perfect simulation of something - that's not what I think the problem is.

It's that, if you're concerned about what the rules say above everything else, you don't have as many opportunities to inject that "moment of judgement" into the game. The players don't contribute as much creativity to the game.

I'm not saying that the rules should be ignored, either. I think the rules should be followed to the letter (and ditched or changed if they don't work). What I think good rules do is that they give you lots of moments of judgement where players can inject that creativity into the game.

Compare these three rules:

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Sneak Attack

When you make an attack with a light blade, a hand
crossbow, a shortbow, or a sling and hit an enemy
granting combat advantage to you, that enemy takes
extra damage based on your level. You can deal this
extra damage only once per turn.

Sneak Attack

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage based on the rogue's level. If the opponent lacks vital spots to strike, the rogue may not Sneak Attack the target.

The DM determines if the target is vulnerable to the rogue's Sneak Attack based on the player's description of the attack.​

I think that, in the third case, we'll see more personalized content from the people in the game.

 

[pemerton]

pre-WotC editions expected the DM to make judgement calls to reinforce the fiction and maintain play balance.

<snip>

This doesn't mean that reality (or some simulation of reality) is enforced. It does mean that there is a lot more content coming from the group. One DM's game is going to be different from another's and the choices players make will be different. I think that the moment of judgement is very important; it's why you play with people - and not just any people, but these people.

It's that, if you're concerned about what the rules say above everything else, you don't have as many opportunities to inject that "moment of judgement" into the game. The players don't contribute as much creativity to the game.

I think this is very interesting.

In my own games, the "moment of judgement" tends to occur in designing PCs and NPCs, in setting up situations and in adjudicating skill chekcs (especially skill challenges, which often involve re-establishing the situation and/or the NCPs participants within it over the course of the encounter). In adjudicating combat encounters, however, I tend to follow the rules very closely - and not only in D&D, but in other games as well. This means that judgment is important for determining which NPC moves where and does what, but (once actions are declared) has comparatively little impact upon mechanical resolution.

I don't know that there is any good reason for this - it's probably just an old roleplayers' habit, which the design of games like Rolemaster and Runequest tends to reinforce (loose skill rules, tight combat rules).

The above having been said, I do like to adjudicate actions in 4e combat by reference to page 42, encounter terrain rules, etc. When the skill power rules came out I was a bit worried that they might crowd out this space, implicitly limiting the scope for judgement by establishing effects that should cost a feat to perform. Thankfully I don't think they've done that, because the powers they grant are well ahead (in power terms) of what I've used page 42 for.

Martial practices, on the other hand, I'm quite happy to ignore in order to avoid just this issue of crowding out the moment of judgement in skill resolution.

There are ways to make that moment of judgement more obvious in the game, though, so when the DM says, "You can't grab a swarm" the player is ready for it.

I'm not saying that the rules should be ignored, either. I think the rules should be followed to the letter (and ditched or changed if they don't work). What I think good rules do is that they give you lots of moments of judgement where players can inject that creativity into the game.

Compare these three rules:

<snip 3 versions of Sneak Attack>

I think that, in the third case, we'll see more personalized content from the people in the game.

I think this is a much better way to approach things than via Rule Zero or its equivalent. It incorporates the "moment of judgement" into the mechanics, rather than leaving it entirely at the level of mutual understanding among a play group.

I think it is a further issue what matters are made subject to judgement, whether from GM or players or both. For example, the 1st ed AD&D alignment rules expressly require the GM to exercise judgement in many circumstances, and those determinations aren't just colour - they have real mechanical consequences. But I think those rules are one of the biggest sources of player/GM friction in the history of D&D, and getting rid of them has (in my view) been a huge improvement in the game.

So I don't think it's enough that the game expressly provide opportunities for the exercise of judgement. It has to get the content and parameters and consequecnes of that judgment right. I think this is a big issue that a lot of game texts (including the 4e ones) don't adequately address. For example, 4e gives good advice to a GM on how to exercise judgement in constructing encounters to achieve particular desired mechanical effects, but says very little about how to use encounters - both in the initial framing, and in the resolution - to drive a story or otherwise engage the players. With skill challengs the text is even more sparse.