D&D 4E 4e and reality

[DracoSuave]

This was done to prove a point about CS.

Nope. Grab is a power. A power that grabs does not inherently use grab as a power. I'm not exactly sure why it's so confusing that a power called "grab" that is a generic power has nothing to do with how other powers that use grab as an effect work. See Bigby's Icy Grasp: The sustain relies on the condition "grabbed", yet the hit line states you grab the target. It's pretty obvious the power means "Grabbed" as in the condition, not "grab" as in another power.

The only place the rules for being grabbed is mention in any of the texts is in the PHB, on page 290. Grabbed is the result of the grab action, as presented there. All conditions are on page 277. Grabbed is not there.

Grabbed is the effect of the grab action. The only mention of 'grab' is the grab action. Effects that say 'You grab the target' are evoking the grab action as much as effects that say 'You shift blah' are evoking the shift action.

Regardless, you act is if the sustain on Bigby's Icy Grasp, refering to the target it has grabbed, somehow won't work if the hand invokes the grab action, which has grabbed as its result.

Your argument is highly dubious. The hand grabs the target... it takes the grab action (or uses the grab power) and executes it. It does not say 'The target is grabbed' but calls and mentions grab by name.

When you call a power or action by name, any argument that says you don't actually use that power or action is one that requires a lot more than pointing at Rules Compendium and saying 'GRABBED IS A CONDITION.'

Because that's not a counter argument to the 'It says you grab, so therefore you grab'.

This is like saying a melee at-will is automatically a basic attack.

Not at all. However, every mention of 'Target uses a melee basic attack as a free action' is a melee basic attack.

The logic here is A = A. Tautology.

That is why grabbed is a condition and powers that say you grab a target, do assume that condition. Again, Bigby's Icy Grasp 100% backs my interpretation. Grab is a power. Powers that grab are different powers. Grab as a power does not tell you how other powers work.

And should a power state as its effect 'The target is grabbed' then I would agree that power does not evoke the rules for the grab action/power.

The number of powers in the Martial Power 2 book that say 'the target is grabbed' rather than 'you grab the target' is zero. Instead, they all say 'You grab the target.'

And grab, is as you mentioned, an explicit power.

There is. Perhaps you should check the rules compendium again, particularly where it says "Grabbed: Rules Condition". This pretty much demolishes every one of your arguments in this case. Also I will point out again the "Grab" you are clinging to is a power. It is not a condition, it's a power that allows you to grab a target with a certain effect line and target line. This does NOT make it a condition. The condition is grabbed and many powers assume that you have a target grabbed on a sustain line where they do: NOT that you are using the power called grab. This is an essential distinction, especially when Heroes of the Fallen Lands makes it 100% clear that grab is a generic power - like a melee basic attack, bull rush or charge (the latter two also being formatted into powers for clarity).

1) Don't have D&D Insider. So all the linking in the world doesn't change it.

2) PHB, the only text rules source for grabbed, is not errata'd.

(note: Not having Insider, I've revised previous arguments to relent grabbed is a condition... it does not effect my final conclusion)

3) If you have a power that says you charge a target (perfect example, barbarians) then you don't need to say 'you use a charge attack' on the target, no more than you need to say 'You use a healing word utility' or other such nonsense. The only reason 'attack' is needed for basic attacks is because basic attacks literally have the word in the title for the power.

Edit: Your logic would be sound if the power said "Make a grab attack" but they don't, it says "You grab the target", that's imposing the grabbed condition (of which I am still amazed you are disputing the existence of something linked and quoted to you several times now).

I go by the rules texts, because that's what I have access to. I'm sorry if I dispute the existance of something I do not have access to.

As a result, I must adjudicate using the only text available to me, where 'grabbed' is not a condition, it is never mentioned as a condition.

More over, 'you grab the target' has the same signifigance as 'you use a melee basic attack'. You're not imposing the 'attacked by a melee basic attack' condition on the target. It says, literally, You X the target. There is a power called X. You use X. You don't use X'd or X'ified or X'nologicated or some condition or effect of X in lieu of X. You use X, because the power says 'YOU X THE Y'

It's not fricken rocket science. 'You fireball the target.' You use fireball. 'You divine challenge the target' You use divine challenge. 'You grab the target.' You use grab.

See Commander's Strike as precedent.

I'm sorry, but you need better than 'grabbed is a condition' to counter the tautology 'X is X'.

 

[P1NBACK]

It's not fricken rocket science. 'You fireball the target.' You use fireball. 'You divine challenge the target' You use divine challenge. 'You grab the target.' You use grab.

It's only rocket science if you're trying to game the system and interpret the rules in an illogical manner.

Grab = grab.

Makes sense to me. That's how I play. No one I've ever played with in real life has ever considered it otherwise. Only on the internet will you find these people trying to game the system and pull it off.

 

[Aegeri]

The only place the rules for being grabbed is mention in any of the texts is in the PHB, on page 290. Grabbed is the result of the grab action, as presented there. All conditions are on page 277. Grabbed is not there.

Neither is "Removed from Play" and yet that is also a rules condition. Also, most of the original PHB conditions are now wrong or errata'ed. Same with grab/grabbed.

Grabbed is the effect of the grab action.

It's also the effect of powers that grab, making the grab action it's own attack and not a condition.

Effects that say 'You grab the target' are evoking the grab action

Nope. It's not a condition. Grabbed is the condition.

Regardless, you act is if the sustain on Bigby's Icy Grasp, refering to the target it has grabbed, somehow won't work if the hand invokes the grab action, which has grabbed as its result.

Correct, because according to you the "Grabbed" condition doesn't exist. So therefore the sustain cannot work because 'grab' isn't a condition. Grabbed is the condition. Hence your confusion that I am sorting out now.

Because that's not a counter argument to the 'It says you grab, so therefore you grab'.

And the sustain relies on having a target grabbed, as in the condition. Meaning that when a power says you grab something, it is assuming the grabbed condition. That's what I specifically asked when I addressed CS earlier.

And should a power state as its effect 'The target is grabbed' then I would agree that power does not evoke the rules for the grab action/power.

Except Bigby's Says "Grab" and yet the sustain line refers to the grabbed condition. Proving that you are incorrect.

And grab, is as you mentioned, an explicit power.

Correct, which none of those powers are using the target and effect line of. Meaning they are not subject to that powers restrictions. As CS already confirmed when I asked them specifically.

1) Don't have D&D Insider. So all the linking in the world doesn't change it.

I've also quoted you the definition of grabbed.

In this case, you are simply wrong asserting that there is no grabbed condition because there is.

2) PHB, the only text rules source for grabbed, is not errata'd.

It doesn't matter, because the PHB is wrong on tons of things now and has been outdated by other rules sources. Grabbed is a formal condition in the game and powers that say "You grab the target" do not refer to the rules for grab (which is explicitly another attack power now in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, not a condition).

I'll give you another example of a rules condition that is a condition that isn't in the PHB: Removed from Play. Do you disagree that Removed from Play is a condition despite the lack of it from the PHB?

If you have a power that says you charge a target (perfect example, barbarians) then you don't need to say 'you use a charge attack' on the target, no more than you need to say 'You use a healing word utility' or other such nonsense. The only reason 'attack' is needed for basic attacks is because basic attacks literally have the word in the title for the power.

Grab is an attack and a condition. If you needed to make a grab attack it should state so. Grabbed is the condition. You have failed to convince me you need to be subjected to the restrictions of grabbed when "grab" also means a condition. Again, as Bigby's Elephant in the Room suggests (as you keep avoiding the fact "Grab" means "Grabbed" in that power constantly).

In any event, not having access to up to date rules sources doesn't mean you can ignore what they say.

Makes sense to me. That's how I play. No one I've ever played with in real life has ever considered it otherwise. Only on the internet will you find these people trying to game the system and pull it off.

It makes perfect sense to me that powers specify what their effects do and their targets. That's how I play. No one I've ever played with in real life or my two online games has ever considered it otherwise. Only on the internet will you find these people trying to hose players out of their abilities legitimately working.

And with that, I'm now quite done with both arguments and this thread.

 

[DracoSuave]

Neither is "Removed from Play" and yet that is also a rules condition. Also, most of the original PHB conditions are now wrong or errata'ed. Same with grab/grabbed.

Removed from play's write up as a condition, unless it's in essentials, has yet to have a printing of it as a condition.

It's also the effect of powers that grab, making the grab action it's own attack and not a condition.

That part is not in dispute. Grab is an attack, not a condition.

Nope. It's not a condition. Grabbed is the condition.

I relent this, and if a power says 'The target is grabbed' then it is invoking the grabbed condition.

Correct, because according to you the "Grabbed" condition doesn't exist. So therefore the sustain cannot work because 'grab' isn't a condition. Grabbed is the condition. Hence your confusion that I am sorting out now.

Regardless, as you state, Grab is a power. Grabbed is a condition. Okay. Two different things.

And the sustain relies on having a target grabbed, as in the condition. Meaning that when a power says you grab something, it is assuming the grabbed condition. That's what I specifically asked when I addressed CS earlier.

The result of the grab power is the grabbed condition. So yes, of course, if a power grabs a target, the target will be grabbed. That's what grab does. It is, as you state, a power that applies the grabbed condition.

It is logically impossible to apply the grab power successfully and not have it end in a grabbed condition. That's what grab does.

Except Bigby's Says "Grab" and yet the sustain line refers to the grabbed condition. Proving that you are incorrect.

1) Bigby's was not created when a Grabbed condition existed. So arguments saying that 'it must refer to a condition' are inherently flawed.
2) If it invokes the grab action/power, then the result of that power is the grabbed condition. A power can refer to the results of its own effects like that. Grab and grabbed are not the same thing, as you keep repeating. Grab is the power. Grabbed is the condition.

The power, as it is written, applies the grab power, then that power applies the grabbed condition, and the power then refers to the condition applied by the power.

Your argument that it must not has no precident. Do X to Y means to Do X. X is defined in this case.

Correct, which none of those powers are using the target and effect line of. Meaning they are not subject to that powers restrictions. As CS already confirmed when I asked them specifically.

There's two ways to look at it, both supported by the game, complete with powers that use that template.

1) When the power tells you to grab a target, you apply the grab power as it is written, applying that powers target, attack, and effect lines just as you would apply any other power evoked by another. (See: Direct the Strike as an example of how a power does this)

2) When the power tells you to grab a target, you apply the grab power, using the applicable lines of the main power when they conflict with the grab power. (See: Commander's Strike as an example of this)

Yours, that Grab doesn't mean Grab, is nonsensible.

I've also quoted you the definition of grabbed.

And for every power that says 'The target is grabbed' you'd have an agreement from me.

However your argument is not that. Your argument is that 'You grab the target' is somehow mystically not actually using the grab power on the target, that it is somehow the grabbed condition and not the grab power because in your mind, grab =/= grab.

You said it yourself. Grab is a power, it does a specific thing. You cannot have grab be a specific power and has specific parameters and then have it not be that specific power and have those specific parameters just because it does not agree with your interpretation.

Your options, to argue with full faith, are 2)

Grab is a power, in which cause powers that tell you to grab a target invoke that power.
Grab is not a power, in which case powers that tell you to grab a target invoke that action.

You do not get a third option: Grab is a power, but powers that tell you to grab a target use some other unrelated thing with a different name because it's convenient to make a point.

In this case, you are simply wrong asserting that there is no grabbed condition because there is.

I've retracted that. But my point stands regardless of whether 'grab' is a power, an action, or a three headed wombat from the planet Gortexia. The powers are explicitly calling it because they are mentioning by verbatim and name.

It doesn't matter, because the PHB is wrong on tons of things now and has been outdated by other rules sources. Grabbed is a formal condition in the game and powers that say "You grab the target" do not refer to the rules for grab (which is explicitly another attack power now in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, not a condition).

You have failed to make the connection that 'you grab the target' is not evoking the grab power. That's the flaw in your argument. Unfortunately 'Cause Grabbed is a condition' is not a sufficient counterargument or contradiction to 'Grab is grab.'

I'll give you another example of a rules condition that is a condition that isn't in the PHB: Removed from Play. Do you disagree that Removed from Play is a condition despite the lack of it from the PHB?

Removed from play isn't mentioned in the PHB on anything. Nor is it relevant to the argument. You've focused too much on the 'Grabbed is a condition' element (which I have relented) and not enough on the no power in question says that a target is grabbed part of the argument, which is what you need to invoke said grabbed condition.

Grab is an attack and a condition.

Wait, I thought grab was the power, and grabbed was the condition?

Which stance do you have?

If you needed to make a grab attack it should state so.

It does. It says 'You grab the target.' How much more 'stating so' do you need? Grab is a specific power. There is no second grab power. And, as you've pointed out repeatedly, 'grabbed' is some other thing, a condition.

Grabbed is the condition. You have failed to convince me you need to be subjected to the restrictions of grabbed when "grab" also means a condition.

I thought the name of the condition was 'grabbed'. You keep changing the definitions on me.

Is the name of the thing 'grabbed' or 'grab'? I cannot argue against someone who changes the definitions on me mid-argument. That's not fair debate.

Again, as Bigby's Elephant in the Room suggests (as you keep avoiding the fact "Grab" means "Grabbed" in that power constantly).

I don't avoid it, because it is not a fact.

Step 1) Bigby's uses the grab power on the target.
Step 2) The grab power gives the target the grabbed condition
Step 3) Bigby's refers to the grabbed condition you've applied by it's use of the grab power.

It's not refering to the same thing. One is the power, the other is the condition. As you've pointed out yourself, they are two different things. Different rules constructs, one of which is the result of the other.

In any event, not having access to up to date rules sources doesn't mean you can ignore what they say.

And I'm not. I've already relented that... it, of course, doesn't mean you can ignore basic tautologies either.

It makes perfect sense to me that powers specify what their effects do and their targets. That's how I play. No one I've ever played with in real life or my two online games has ever considered it otherwise. Only on the internet will you find these people trying to hose players out of their abilities legitimately working.

Again, that's the province of houseruling and I encourage it. I think it's cool to use powers to grab things you should not grab, personally.

That's not the same thing, however, as understanding a basic tautology.

Grab and grabbed are not the same thing, by your own claim.

The burden is on you to prove that grab and grab are not the same thing. Grabbed is a condition. Grab is a power. Now that you've proven grab is a power, prove that grab is not a power... without undermining your entire argument.

That's the real elephant in this room, and while you've picked apart the 'grabbed is not a condition' that's merely a strawman. What you really have to prove (and have failed to even address) is that grab is both a power and not a power. Prove that, and you have a point. Ignore that, and you're just making crap up.

Moreover, think of grokkability. The power tells you to grab something. You look in the index of your book and go... ah yes... that is what this is doing. To grab something means to do this. And you're trying to claim that grab is some other thing... that actually has not existed in print for years, despite the fact that an entire build of fighter is based on its use?

I can believe the rules changed. I cannot believe that the rules require knowing or refering to a reference that is not in print nor an errata of the same, that adjudicating Martial Power 2 and Bigby's Icy Grasp required a time machine to go into the future so you can get essentials so you know those powers are not actually grabbing the target, but merely applying the grabbed condition.

When you have two interpretations, one that goes 'Hey, this is written in the core book and works fine' and the other goes 'Hey, you have to look at future books to figure this out' I will choose the one that does not require using time travel. YMMV.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It looks like this thread has pretty much come to an end in terms of fruitful discussion when it gets down to line by line rebuttles.

Time to close it? Could be, unless you think it really deserves to stay open.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Unfortunately, all of that discussion fails to consider the description of Grab in the Rules Compendium which I posted earlier.

It is now listed as an at-will power complete with target line, attack line, and hit line. On it's hit line it says "You grab the target".

Also, Grabbed is listed as a condition that says "While a target is grabbed it is immobilized".

So, if the logic above is to be believed, every time you use the Grab At-Will power that everyone gets, when you hit with the power, it doesn't apply the Grabbed condition(since it doesn't say that), you instead Grab the target. In order to grab a target(again, according to the above logic), you use the Grab power. So, you roll another attack roll...and if you hit, then you grab the target....which requires another attack roll...and so on.

The Rules Compendium is confirmed to be the most up to date version of the rules. WOTC_Josh from the rules update team said this on the WOTC message boards:

The HoFL updates you've seen are all the essentials-related updates so far. There is no update document for the Rules Compendium. Anything new in the RC that's not included in the updates is not updated, not a "fix", it's just additional. There are some expanded rules and clarifications there, but those aren't changes. They might feel that way though, if you've been playing differently than what's written there. That was one of the big drivers behind the Rules Compendium from the beginning, that many of the rules in the PHB weren't entirely clear. Players from different groups or different areas were reading the same things and playing them out quite differently, based on interpretation. The RC clarifications are there to let players know how the devs intend the rules to be read, and how they've intended the rules of the game to work.

Which leads me to believe that the version of Grab written in the PHB was a little too vague and was being interpreted poorly. It's likely that the rules are running into a English problem where some designer decided to use an English word and meaning in a rules entry. In the same way that some powers say "you immobilize the target" apply the immobilized condition and "you stun the target" applies the stunned condition, "you grab the target" applies the grabbed condition.

And given that Grab is now written up as a full power, it should have no interaction with any other rule. In the same way that you wouldn't refer to the description of Fireball to see how your Flaming Sphere worked.

Even the preamble for the Grab power in the Rules Compendium basically says(roughly) "This is just one way of grabbing people, and that some class powers will be better at it than this power, but this one has the advantage of being able to be used by anyone."

 

[pemerton]

It's just a fundamental approach to the game. Some people approach it like a boardgame/CCG and go with the rules heavy, game the system approach.

I think this is a bit objectionable.

It's one thing to express your preferences for how to play the game. It's another thing to describe other people's preferences using pejorative descriptions ("board game", "card game"- these are not neutral descriptions of an RPG) that completely miss the point of what is at issue.

My preference for following the rules is influenced by rules texts for games like HeroQuest, The Burning Wheel and so forth. The notion that these RPGs are like board games is laughable.

This is why I am much more sympathetic to LostSoul's viewpoint than to yours. LostSoul (at least as I understand him) is addressing the issue not as one of whether or not we (or more specifically the GM) should suspend the rules from time to time, but rather of whether or not the rules specify that a player or GM is to exercise judgment in the course of action resolution - with clear guidance as to what the subject matter of the judgment is.

In my posts I've explained my preferences and habits with respect to judgment - in particular, my players are looking for me to exercise it mostly in setting up encounters and in adjudicating NPC's social responses as well as skill challenges more generally, but not so much in respect of the resolution of attacks in combat.

There's plenty to be said in favour of or against either LostSoul's approach or my approach, in terms of which better supports spontaneity, non-railroading, thematic power, enagment with the details of the fiction, and so on. Indeed, as I said above, my way may (at least in part if not in whole) simply reflect old roleplaying habitual attitudes towards the difference between combat resolution and skill resolution. (Even Burning Wheel is tighter and leaves less room for judgment in its combat resolution systems than in its social resolution system.)

But none of what might be said for or against either approach has anything to do with board games or card games.

 

[eamon]

I think this is a bit objectionable.

It's one thing to express your preferences for how to play the game. It's another thing to describe other people's preferences using pejorative descriptions ("board game", "card game"- these are not neutral descriptions of an RPG) that completely miss the point of what is at issue.

[...]

But none of what might be said for or against either approach has anything to do with board games or card games.

Since when are card games or board games such poor entertainment as to be considered an perjorative comparison?

If you play 4e "by the book" then the combat aspects of the game - what with power cards, a game grid, and a fairly tactically oriented game-style - are quite similar to some modern card/board games. Of course, sometimes it's different: for instance, there may be odd environmental factors that don't quite fit the mold but even those are often poured into a fairly simple mechanic. Clearly, combat is a pretty big part of 4e - just look at the % of the game rules devoted to combat actions & powers.

I'm not sure that's a problem - I mean, it's not what I'm looking for, but it's a welcome component of the game I'd like to be playing. Even while retaining the tactical, rule-based combat, you can gain quite a bit of consistency by rewriting the rules that don't make sense.

 

[pemerton]

Since when are card games or board games such poor entertainment as to be considered an perjorative comparison?

Well, sitting around on the couch relaxing can be fun and even worthwhile - but if I compared your football performance to someone sitting around on a couch, I don't think you'd be very flattered.

Likewise, comparing someone's RPGing to playing games that have no roleplaying component - such as board games, card games or those other stalwarts of the genre like Monopoly and Chess - is pretty much to imply that the players in question aren't roleplaying, but rather playing a wargame.

Clearly, combat is a pretty big part of 4e - just look at the % of the game rules devoted to combat actions & powers.

I don't dispute this. But it has nothing to do with whether or not its an RPG, or whether or not playing 4e by the rules is more analogous to board or card gaming. For example, all the suggested departures from the rules in this thread, which are said to be exemplary of roleplaying, involve combat (eg grappling swarms). And LostSoul's example rule that requires judgment also invoves combat (ie sneak attack).

If you play 4e "by the book" then the combat aspects of the game - what with power cards, a game grid, and a fairly tactically oriented game-style - are quite similar to some modern card/board games.

And playing Rolemaster combat is quite similar to some wargames and play-by-mail games. But I'd never suggest that Rolemaster play is a PBM/wargame.

Burning Wheel has very crunchy combat rules - it's not therefore a wargame, and it's hardly as if Burning Wheel players aren't really roleplaying.

I'm not sure that's a problem.

My problem is with the characterisation of non-simulationist play, or play where the GM's judgement is exercised more heavily at the point of scene framing than action resolution, as not really roleplaying. Not only is it annoying, but it's just plain silly - games like HeroQuest or The Burning Wheel roughly fit this description, and to suggest that they're not roleplaying just because action resolution is carried out in accordance with the rules would be absurd.

My basic point is that a good game should not require the GM to suspend the rules - if so, then (like LostSoul said upthread) the rules need fixing. It's a separate question what sort of judgment calls the rules should require the GM or other players to make. I've explained my preferences in that regard in earlier posts, and whether or not those preferences are sound - as I've said upthread, they're by no means immune from criticism - they have nothing to do with the board gaming/cardgaming canard.

 

[P1NBACK]

My basic point is that a good game should not require the GM to suspend the rules - if so, then (like LostSoul said upthread) the rules need fixing. It's a separate question what sort of judgment calls the rules should require the GM or other players to make. I've explained my preferences in that regard in earlier posts, and whether or not those preferences are sound - as I've said upthread, they're by no means immune from criticism - they have nothing to do with the board gaming/cardgaming canard.

I agree that you're taking offense to something that is just simply true. 4E's combat mechanics are more like a board game and less like a roleplaying game. This is made doubly true if you completely ignore the fiction going on in the game to adhere to the strict disassociated mechanics in place at the table.

The Burning Wheel is vastly different in this respect. The mechanics are jointed nicely with the fiction, so when you play the Burning Wheel strictly by the rules, it's not disassociated with the roleplaying at the table.

I've said it before (in this and the swarm thread), this is a major flaw of 4E. It's mechanics (especially in combat, but also in Skill Challenges), is extremely disassociated with the fiction.

So, while I'd be more interested in your argument if you were saying, "Well, because 4E's mechanics have so little to do with the fiction, it's not wise to make judgments of the mechanics based on the fiction."

You saying, "you're making fun of us because you're saying it's boardgame-like to play strictly by the rules" doesn't really seem all that much of an argument. I'm not attacking anyone's play style. But, if we're going to play this game like a roleplaying game, I think some attention has to be paid to the fiction.

When you say, "you can't push a swarm with a melee attack" and I say, "but he just used a board to shove the rats back into the wall!" Well, there's a fundamental difference there.