In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[wrecan]

My point was "...which still leaves the DMs and players at loss to figure out how that fits into worldbuilding".

Except that since you were wrong to assert there are things you can do in combat in 4e that you can't do out of combat in 4e (which is what precedes the ellipsis in your quote), there's nothing for DMs and players to figure out on that issue in 4e.

Powers that are defined out-of-combat by their in-combat application (which only applies with adrenaline and time constraints) does not help me with worldbuilding.

Nor does it have to be "fit into" worldbuilding.

Thus not making 4E any easier than 3E in the original discussion with Neonchamelon about 3E powers like Zone of Truth, etc. which is the original point.

Except that the problem with Zone of Truth was not that it could used in or out of combat, but that it's actual existence forces the worldbuilder to deal with its existence. In 4e, the equivalent ritual, Chorus of Truth, is prohibitively expensive for commonfolk, and merely imposes a penalty on Bluff checks, making it more difficult to lie. In contrast, Zone of Truth can be cast by any third level priest (which according to the demographic charts in the DMG are quite common in any large population center), and is virtually foolproof.

That's why Zone of Truth creates worldbuilding issues where Chorus of Truth does not. It has nothing to do with the fact that Zone of Truth can be cast using a standard action.

So let's try it again. How is it that 4e has worldbuilding issues in a quantity equal or greater than 3e's issues?

 

[Yesway Jose]

Except that the problem with Zone of Truth was not that it could used in or out of combat, but that it's actual existence forces the worldbuilder to deal with its existence.

I acknowledge that you see it as a problem, yet somehow people survived (and even had fun!) with this "problem" for years, and continue to do so in 3.5, Pathfinder, etc. Just saying...

So let's try it again. How is it that 4e has worldbuilding issues in a quantity equal or greater than 3e's issues?

The quality of the issue is different, not the quantity.

Hypnotism is defined as doing X + Y *in combat*. We know that a wizard can only cause X + Y to happen due to the stress and confused hectic nature of combat.

So, what can this fictionally undefined Hypnotism power do outside of combat, when the wizard can take it easy and relax? Can he do X2 + Y2 + Z now that he's not under stress?

The answer: Nope. He can do exactly the same thing as he could do in combat.

Before I continue... So far, am I right or wrong?

 

[wrecan]

I acknowledge that you see it as a problem, yet somehow people survived

I didn't say it was an insurmountable problem, simply one that had to be addressed.

Hypnotism is defined as doing X + Y *in combat*.

No, it is defined as doing X + Y as a standard action.

We know that a wizard can only cause X + Y to happen due to the stress and confused hectic nature of combat.

That is untrue. A wizard can use hypnotism any tie he can use a standard action, whether or not he is stressed or hectic.

However, just because there are things he can do out of combat that he can do in combat does not mean that the things he can do in combat he must necessarily do more or (either in quality or quantity) out of combat.

what can this fictionally undefined Hypnotism power do outside of combat

The same thing it does in combat.

 

[Yesway Jose]

That is untrue. A wizard can use hypnotism any tie he can use a standard action, whether or not he is stressed or hectic.

OK, we seem to be stuck here. You indicated that combat paradigm is unique because there are things you can out of combat that you can't do in combat, or that there are things you can't do in combat that you can do out of combat. Your interpretation was that this was because of adrenaline, stress, hecticness of combat limiting the character's options (including magic).

Thus A is all the magical things a wizard can do with X, and B is a subset of A representing the magical things that he can do in combat with X.

So if X = Hypnotism, is A > B, or A = B?

 

[wrecan]

OK, we seem to be stuck here. You indicated that combat paradigm is unique because there are things you can out of combat that you can't do in combat, or that there are things you can't do in combat that you can do out of combat.

No. There's nothing you can do in combat you can't do out of combat (though doing it may cause you to be in combat!). There are things you can do out of combat you can't do in combat, which I explained as the constraints of time and/or concentration.

 

[Yesway Jose]

No. There's nothing you can do in combat you can't do out of combat (though doing it may cause you to be in combat!). There are things you can do out of combat you can't do in combat, which I explained as the constraints of time and/or concentration.

A is all the magical things a wizard can do with X, and B is a subset of A representing the magical things that he can do in combat with X due to the constraints of time and/or concentration

So if X = Hypnotism, is A > B, or A = B?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Actually, strictly going according to what the rules say, anything extra that Hypnotism can do out of combat, that it can't do in combat, is undefined. It is up to the GM+players to decide the limits. The rules hint at this around the edges, with p. 42. and the concept of a five minute rest restoring an encounter power used outside of combat.

Because I vastly prefer magic that augments skills rather than replaces them, at my table, I'll push really hard to force all such additional non-combat use into skill checks or skill challenges--preferably as an aid to it. There are already rules for that, too--you can get anywhere from a +2 to +5 bonus to a skill check via situation--which would include powers. This makes hypnotism into something that can be cleverly used to augment an existing social check (and perhaps perception checks, too).

Another table might want more robust effects. To the extent that you decide that it being called "hypnotism" means that it can do these robust effects, it is up to your table to deal with any side effects.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Actually, strictly going according to what the rules say, anything extra that Hypnotism can do out of combat, that it can't do in combat, is undefined. It is up to the GM+players to decide the limits. The rules hint at this around the edges, with p. 42. and the concept of a five minute rest restoring an encounter power used outside of combat.

That's what I what aiming for, and is what I meant by above (A > B).

If wrecan is/had been with me so far, my next baby step is to ask that no matter how you define A (=all the things hypnotism can do outside of combat), it has no affect on B (=what you can do inside combat).

Thus combat is a selectively permeable membrane. It passes mechanical information from combat to out-of-combat, but it doesn't accept mechanical information from out-of-combat into combat no matter how out-of-combat is defined

Am I right or wrong so far?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That's what I what aiming for, and is what I meant by above (A > B). I seem to have great difficulty with wrecan on simple things like this.

If wrecan is/had been with me so far, my next baby step is to ask that no matter how you define A (=all the things hypnotism can do outside of combat), it has no affect on B (=what you can do inside combat).

Thus combat is a selectively permeable membrane. It passes mechanical information from combat to out-of-combat, but it doesn't accept mechanical information from out-of-combat into combat no matter how out-of-combat is defined

Am I right or wrong so far?

As I see it, technically correct, but missing a critical piece of context: If you have decided at your table to expand to a more robust usage of powers out of combat, then it isn't much of a jump to selectively allow some of that to go back into the combat portion. After all, you've already taken responsibility for allowing "magic" to do some things outside the rules. Presumably, then, you'll be somewhat comfortable extending that ruling back into combat.

This gets fuzzy of course. Because p. 42 is usable in combat--maybe mainly usable in combat--a character can already push the definition of powers through it. That is, per RAW, you can't just use Hypnotism to get some other effect that sound "hypnotic" or corresponds to some prior editions more wide open rulings. But you can use p. 42 in conjunction with a power to do something "hypnotic" that might not be acceptable with the power or p. 42 alone.

For example, even running a fairly strict game, I'd be prone to let someone use the p. 42 guidelines and hypnotism to inflict a daze or slow effect. You just have to work for it a little more than using directly what the power says on the tin, and the bonuses might not be quite as good using p. 42.

That's with my current group, who would never dream of abusing narrative freedom granted like that. The more they did, the more I'd let up too. I like it if this kind of thing grows as the campaign develops. With an D&D Encounters group (not that I'd ever run such), I'd be a lot more strict--at least until I got to know the people. Seems like there is nearly always "that guy" at such an event who always tried to find a way to abuse the letter of the rules, and however much of the spirit of the rules you left within his grasp. Part of the 4E design was to help the poor novice GM come down hard on "that guy"--until the GM got his feet under him.

 

[Yesway Jose]

As I see it, technically correct, but missing a critical piece of context: If you have decided at your table to expand to a more robust usage of powers out of combat, then it isn't much of a jump to selectively allow some of that to go back into the combat portion. After all, you've already taken responsibility for allowing "magic" to do some things outside the rules. Presumably, then, you'll be somewhat comfortable extending that ruling back into combat.

Deja vu as I've touched upon this before with someone else in a previous page. I believe the most likely conclusion was that affecting combat rules in this way is too risky and game-unbalancing.

For example, even running a fairly strict game, I'd be prone to let someone use the p. 42 guidelines and hypnotism to inflict a daze or slow effect.
<snip>
That's with my current group, who would never dream of abusing narrative freedom granted like that. The more they did, the more I'd let up too. I like it if this kind of thing grows as the campaign develops.

I LOVE your thinking, but if it was a good idea to use daze or slow with Hypnotism then why wouldn't the designers have thought of that themselves? There must be a game balance issue, and thus it can't be suitable for normal 4E gameplay.

Is it fair, then, to assume that the above is an exception and not the norm?