Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[TheUltramark]

It seems the real basis for this argument is do powers work infallibly or can they, in certain situations, be thwarted. Obviously I am in the camp of "occasional thwartation"

I am certain this is not the only scenario like this, either. In fact, it owuld not surprise me to find hundreds of cases just like this one. In my opinion, and luckily the opinion of all at my table, the dm has the final say, not the player.

I do agree with Thasmodious, though, this is very much not a big deal at the table. Something like this would be handled in short order, and we as a group would move on quickly enough.

 

[MarkB]

I don't think this has anything to do with the problem of knocking a snake prone. The "prone" condition, when applied to the majority of cases in 4E, means just what the ordinary sense of the word means. It's only when you get into unusual cases, like snakes or oozes, that there's a potential problem for some people.

For that matter, I don't have much trouble imagining knocking an ooze prone. Just because they're undifferentiated biologically doesn't mean they are physically too.

Your typical ooze in combat is likely to be extruding cilia on its underside for extra grip, and pseudopods from its top side to lash out at opponents. If you flip it so that the cilia are at the top and the pseudopods are underneath, that's going to inconvenience it until it takes a moment (let's call it a move action) to reconfigure itself.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It seems the real basis for this argument is do powers work infallibly or can they, in certain situations, be thwarted. Obviously I am in the camp of "occasional thwartation"

I am certain this is not the only scenario like this, either. In fact, it owuld not surprise me to find hundreds of cases just like this one. In my opinion, and luckily the opinion of all at my table, the dm has the final say, not the player.

Well, AFAICT, the 4e ruleset agrees with you 100%. The DM has the final say in 4e, as in all other editions. And, unless I am mistaken, the DM's right to "occasional thwartation" is expressed in the books.


RC

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One of the good things about the prone condition is that it prompted the question, "how do you knock an ooze prone?" Because then people that had the question got the real answer, which is that the mechanics and the label are not 100% in sync, and that the appropriate response when they are not is use your judgment, keeping the priorities of the table in mind.

The big problem with highly legal language, when used, is that it creates the illusion that the mechanics and words are perfectly in sync, when in fact this can never be true 100%, even with reams of fine print.

Legal languages teaches people that the spirit of the game doesn't matter; that they should not care about it at all. Even those conscious of the problem must spend some effort not letting it creep in on the edges.

And to top it all off, some mechanical game rules are, in fact, technical in effect and language. Legal language is pseudo-technical. Mixing the two can easily confuse people (and in fairness, it takes a really good writer to keep the distinctions separate for most readers, given a big enough document).

Legal language should be reserved for when it matters--such as this will needs to be subject to as little interpretation as humanely possible. And even then, we'll sometimes have fights over it. It isn't worth going to that kind of trouble to convey the rules of a game, while obscuring the spirit of that game. Might as well have legal language for how we determine what goes on our pizza.

 

[TheUltramark]

ok, I can look up rules too

In the players handbook it clearly states that when prone you grant CA in melee, you get +2 to ranged defenses, you take -2 to all attacks...AND YOU ARE LYING ON THE GROUND.

It isn't just some common sense, or webster's definition, it's actually in the rule, and by it being there, doesn't that imply that before you are prone you are....you know...NOT lying on the ground???????

 

[Thasmodious]

ok, I can look up rules too

In the players handbook it clearly states that when prone you grant CA in melee, you get +2 to ranged defenses, you take -2 to all attacks...AND YOU ARE LYING ON THE GROUND.

It isn't just some common sense, or webster's definition, it's actually in the rule, and by it being there, doesn't that imply that before you are prone you are....you know...NOT lying on the ground???????

You are getting too technical and focusing on the one piece of the condition with no mechanical effect. However, any creature has a method of moving itself that involves contact with the ground. A snake and a man both use contact with the ground to move themselves about, a snake has more contact with the ground, relative to its total surface area than a legged creature. A snake moves along the ground by manipulating its ventral scales along the ground. The ventral scales are located on the underside of the snake. Essentially, when a snake is moving, it is not lying on the ground anymore than I am moving if I am lying on the ground. The part of its body responsible for its locomotion is in contact with the ground and active. If you disrupt that, the snake has to right itself to move again, in that space, when its ventral scales are not on the ground, or not enough of them are, THEN it is lying on the ground. Otherwise, it is moving along the ground just as any other creature does. Lying on the ground implies a lack of movement, and indeed, the lack of movement is part of the mechanical effect of the prone condition.

Secondly, having the prone condition applied in no way implies that you weren't previously on the ground. You could well have been. There is no requirement that you are standing in order to have the prone condition applied or re-applied. In most cases having it applied again would have no in game effect, it would just be ignored since you were already prone. However, some powers might apply a duration or another situation to deal with such as entangled or a more severe penalty.

So, to sum up:

1. A moving snake is not lying on the ground, it is moving along the ground. An attacking snake is not lying on the ground, it is coiled to strike, raised up in a position to both strike and move.
2. Often conditions are secondary effects. The rules specify that the longest duration applies when a condition is applied twice by different attacks. Someone proned by a secondary effect is then hit with a command type spell with (save ends), the caster commanding the target to be prone. They are prone until they save. Same with blind, deaf, whatever.

 

[Barastrondo]

ok, I can look up rules too

In the players handbook it clearly states that when prone you grant CA in melee, you get +2 to ranged defenses, you take -2 to all attacks...AND YOU ARE LYING ON THE GROUND.

It isn't just some common sense, or webster's definition, it's actually in the rule, and by it being there, doesn't that imply that before you are prone you are....you know...NOT lying on the ground???????

Nope. Because if it did, then if I were hit by an immobilized effect that was going to end at the end of my next turn, then I would be immune to any effects that restrained me. However, a condition that includes "unable to move" doesn't imply that I was able to move before I was restrained. Hence, sucks to be me.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

ok, I can look up rules too

In the players handbook it clearly states that when prone you grant CA in melee, you get +2 to ranged defenses, you take -2 to all attacks...AND YOU ARE LYING ON THE GROUND.

It isn't just some common sense, or webster's definition, it's actually in the rule, and by it being there, doesn't that imply that before you are prone you are....you know...NOT lying on the ground???????

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying a snake can't be made prone because it's already lying on the ground?

Wouldn't that indicate, then, that snakes are *always* prone, and always take the penalties and bonuses associated therewith?

If you're saying that they don't take those penalties all the time, then conversely there's no problem with giving a snake the prone condition. When that happens, the snake is just lying on the ground (which it does anyway) in such a way that it had additional effects (which doesn't normally happen) - namely, the benefits and penalties applied by the prone condition.

So what's the problem here?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Doppleposten! Ja!

 

[TheUltramark]

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying a snake can't be made prone because it's already lying on the ground?

Wouldn't that indicate, then, that snakes are *always* prone, and always take the penalties and bonuses associated therewith?

If you're saying that they don't take those penalties all the time, then conversely there's no problem with giving a snake the prone condition. When that happens, the snake is just lying on the ground (which it does anyway) in such a way that it had additional effects (which doesn't normally happen) - namely, the benefits and penalties applied by the prone condition.

So what's the problem here?

this is just fun to argue this, as I have said before, it really isn't that big of a deal, but I do like to plead my case, so here goes
Snakes are in fact always (always being relative) on their bellies. Humans are not so often found in that position, and seldom do you see a human fighting from his belly, although it is possible to do so, and obviously has been done. Fighting in an unnatural way is why you get penalized for being prone. Snakes are naturally prone, so why would they get a penalty?

Now, you can argue about flipping a snake over, or grabbing and lifting a snake, or some other kind of attack, but punching a snake will never knock it prone in my game. Furthermore, if you try and "spring it on me" like "I do 9 damage, and OH! - I almost forgot, it's knocked prone" - sorry, you just blundered your attack - but fear not, we'l all fun just the same.