In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Yesway Jose]

Yesway Jose, this seems to me to be the crux of the misunderstanding. I see no evidence that 3e's designers spent any time considering the worldbuilding aspects of the mechanics they designed. There is nothing "simulationist" about the Zone of Truth. It's simply a spell that forces people to tell the truth within it. It doesn't "simulate" anything.

You're asking the wrong person regarding Zone of Truth as I don't remember ever using it or seeing it in-game.

Generally speaking, many spells in D&D have simulated fantasy fiction expectations. So Polymorph Other simulates a person permanently turned into a frog as per fairy tales and so forth. Baleful Polymorph does not. IMO a proper hypnotism spell would simulate hypnotism as I know in real life, Jedi Mind Trick, etc. A hypnotism spell that fails to do so should not be called hypnotism. Ditto for a hypnotism spell that seems arbitrarily binary in its possible effects. Obviously, this is all subjective to expectations.

It seems to me we're getting off-track.

I know. I made a one/two sentence response a few pages ago to someone, and it somehow ballooned into a few pages.

What we seem now to be discussing is the world-building problems inherent in homebrewing new mechanics. But that issue is identical between 3e and 4e. The only difference is that you play 3e, and thus would miss those mechanics that didn't get ported over to 4e, and you appear to be hesitant to homebrew them. But just as similarly, someone moving from 4e to 3e would miss mechanics that exist in 4e but not 3e and be equally hesitant to homebrew them.

The problem, then, is not anything inherent in 3e or 4e. The problem is inherent to anybody changing systems and wanting to import stuff from their prior system.

I have to disagree IMO. I don't think about "porting" from 3E to 4E. Obviously, WoTC do have to worry about sacred cows, but that hasn't been my issue.

 

[Yesway Jose]

This isn't even getting to the issue with Wall of Iron. Wall of Iron costs 50 gp to cast but at the earliest level (13th), creates at least 3,744 pounds of iron worth 374.4 gp. So that's a 324.4 gp profit. Every decent-sized kingdom should have at least one 13th level wizard, who can supply any kingdom with all of its iron needs casting this spell once a week (100 tons of iron//year is a fine haul for any medieval-ish campaign). Producing almost two tons of iron every day, should obviate the need for iron mines.

Good point. Just for fun, and not to argue one way or another about walls of iron -- but there's nothing in the rules about breaking up walls of iron. It is easy to rule that walls of iron broken up beyond their original dimensions in any way will degrade and crumble. Fictionally, the magic wall is only bound to reality while remaining in its original form as summoned into the world.

 

[wrecan]

Good point. Just for fun, and not to argue one way or another about walls of iron -- but there's nothing in the rules about breaking up walls of iron.

The spell descibes the wall as "like any iron wall". An iron wall that crumbles so easily is not "like any iron wall". It has the hardness and hit points of iron. Moreover the duration of the spell is "instantaneous". There's no lingering magic that would destroy the iron once the wall is dismantled.

Quite plainly, the spell converts 100 gp into almost a ton and a half of iron, instantly, and without conditions.

It is easy to rule that walls of iron broken up beyond their original dimensions in any way will degrade and crumble.

I thought you were so hesitant to make spot house rules like this. How do you know this won't come back and bite you, just as you fear whenever you are called upon to do it in 4e?

Fictionally, the magic wall is only bound to reality while remaining in its original form as summoned into the world.

It's not a magic wall. If it were a magic wall, like a wall of force, it would have a duration.

 

[wrecan]

You're asking the wrong person regarding Zone of Truth as I don't remember ever using it or seeing it in-game.

I didn't ask a question. I was making a point.

I don't think about "porting" from 3E to 4E. Obviously, WoTC do have to worry about sacred cows, but that hasn't been my issue.

Then what's your issue? Is it really that you don't like the names for attack powers like Hypnotism and Baleful Polymorph? If it was "A Second of Control" and "Momentary Transmogrification", would your issues be resolved on those points?

 

[Yesway Jose]

The spell descibes the wall as "like any iron wall". An iron wall that crumbles so easily is not "like any iron wall". It has the hardness and hit points of iron. Moreover the duration of the spell is "instantaneous".

In fact, the SRD states "Like any iron wall, this wall is subject to rust, perforation, and other natural phenomena." That's not the same as stating that it's like any iron wall, it only shares the qualities of rusting, perforation and natural phenomena. Artificially being cut up into blocks is not natural phenomenon.

I thought you were so hesitant to make spot house rules like this.

No I didn't. I said I would theoretically be hesitant to introduce rules that would affect 4E combat balance for any one hypothetical gaming group.

Now do you know this won't come back and bite you, just as you fear whenever you are called upon to do it in 4e?

I said I was thinking just for fun. I didn't houserule it. If you want to be anal about that, my response will be equally so. Is this the conversation you really want to have after admitting that it was going off track?

 

[wrecan]

In fact, the SRD states "Like any iron wall, this wall is subject to rust, perforation, and other natural phenomena." That's not the same as stating that it's like any iron wall, it only shares the qualities of rusting, perforation and natural phenomena. Artificially being cut up into blocks is not natural phenomenon.

It's an iron wall. "You cause a flat, vertical iron wall to spring into being." Your interpretation is saying it's not an iron wall at all, but merely something that looks like iron.

I said I was thinking just for fun. I didn't houserule it. If you want to be anal about that, my response will be equally so. Is this the conversation you really want to have after admitting that it was going off track?

You said we were speculating for fun. So I was speculating.

It can be dispelled, right?

No. It's an instantaneous spell. Once cast it cannot be dispelled. Neither a dispel magic nor an anti-magic sphere will get rid of a wall of iron, once cast.

 

[tomBitonti]

A Finer Review of "Disassociated"

An idea that I'm noticing from this ongoing thread is that "Disassociated" has several applications, and it has a different "feel" depending on the application.

A second idea is that the notion of "Disassociated" depends a lot on what associations the player is trying to make.

To very briefly online the first idea, one notion is a disassociation of a player ability from an explanation of how, for a single occurrence, the ability works. A second notion is a disassociation based on the frequency with which an ability can be used.

For an example of the first idea, "Come and get it" is frequently used as an example. Models which explain this ability when it is used against several different types of foes, say, a swarm, a golem, a mindless undead such as a zombie, or a barbarian. Folks, including myself, have had problems with the explanation. For zombies, you could imagine the fighter slashing his arm to put the scent of blood in the air, or against a trio of golems guarding a doorway, making lunges at the doorway to draw their attention.

Another example of the first idea is based on the question of who can try the ability. If a fighter can draw zombies with a splash of blood, why couldn't anyone?

A third example of the first idea is any daily ability which is not resource (think ammunition) based.

As to the second idea, I have seen occasional wording which finds that game rules which don't, even abstractly, have any sensible correspondence to real physics, or real psychology, to be "disassociated". In this regards, there seems to be a different underlying model against which the player is attempting to form an association. For example, folks new to role playing, or at least to D&D, find hit points to be a lousy model of health and damage. On the other hand, some folks (myself included) are used to the 3E nomenclature, and keep trying to map 4E abilities to the 3E underlying model (as expressed by the keywords), and failing that, find 4E to be disassociative. Other folks find various rules subsets to be disassociated to one degree or another, based on their actual experience, say, in fencing, or experiencing actual live fire. As an example, based on the discussions regarding 200 falls, I found through research that, very roughly, a 50 fall has a 50% mortality rate, and a fall of between 70 and 90 feet has a 90% mortality rate. I found also that even relatively short 10' falls can be lethal, depending on the surface and the area of incidence.

That is to say, what two different people think of as "disassociated" will be influenced, strongly, by their notion of "reasonable" game physics.

Anyways,

TomBitonti

 

[Yesway Jose]

You said we were speculating for fun. So I was speculating.

And that's all it is, speculating.

Has anybody here really expressed concern for Zones of Truth and Walls of Iron affecting their own game (and not someone else's hypothetical game)? No.

Has anybody stated that problems are completely absent from published worldbuilding rules? No.

You introduced the Wall of Iron so that you could make a point against a claim that doesn't exist on this thread.

 

[tomBitonti]

I should say, Zone of Truth is an excellent way to keep the kingdom safe!

Will it keep us safer? Yes, in the hands of the wise and skillful!

Did I kill the Prince? No! (The Prince fell onto a dagger; the fall together with the dagger killed the prince. What I don't say is that I pushed the prince, so my push indirectly killed the prince, but the fall and the dagger were the more direct cause.)

Looking at the Wall of Iron example, there is still the need to carve up the wall into usable pieces. I guess an investment in an adamantine dagger is needed, otherwise, I just have a huge hunk of iron. How would I even begin to carve that up? Or fit it into a furnace to melt it down? Seems like a big furnace. Ok, then a bound fire elemental, and a safe spot for a rather large flame, and equipment for casting the iron into smaller portions.

Also, as a 6'th level spell, that gives you a 11'th level wizard, whom is rare in some environments.

But, by the spell, the Iron is actual Iron, as the spell has a duration of "Instantaneous". Also as a result, the resulting wall cannot be dispelled.

Joking aside, you have a point: The resulting wall is quite valuable.

On the other hand, there is a lot that is world breaking in this regard. Any permanently bound fire or ice elemental seems to be a perpetual source of heat and cold. A decanter of endless water is an endless source of water. You could use teleport to shift large masses to the top of a high mountain, for a source of energy. Or, define a frame of reference inside of a moving box carried aloft by a flying wizard using levitate, and who is moving very quickly, to shift a large mass from standing still to that same velocity. That is, assuming that teleport is relative to frames of reference. Otherwise, how do you teleport off of a moving boat, or to the opposite side of a world? Or, what is the limit of using stone shape to carve a narrow slice around a block, for a fast way to create a tunnel, one block at a time? When you travel miles underground (below sea level), why don't you experience blistering heat and unendurable pressure?

Generally, if you push too far in these lines, the game rather breaks. Then you are back to more of a question of player expectations: How does a player expect teleport to work? What do players find is "reasonable" for game abilities?

TomBitonti

 

[tomBitonti]

To fill in additional detail, there is a notion here of what: A player has an ability to achieve a result, and how or why: A player can teleport, at will, as a teleportation based spell. A shadowdancer can teleport from shadow to shadow by stepping into the plane of shadow, where distances are different, and back.

Then, the explanation has a real effect: In a magic dead region, a teleport spell does not work. In total darkness, there are no shadows.

Applying the same to a possible fighter's mark: A fighter chooses to harry a particular opponent that they threaten. The fighter chooses to forestall their attack, but if the opponent does anything except fight defensively, the fighter gets an immediate attack with a +2 bonus against that opponent. The fighter takes a -2 to their AC to any attack other than from the marked opponent.

In many cases, what the objection seems to be is that they player and the GM are removed from the rationale behind the ability. The ability just "works" because "that's the way it is". Although, they are allowed to describe the ability, as they see fit (providing that the description has no consequential effect: If I describe "Come and Get It" as the fighter shouting a challenge at the top of their lungs, so to draw the room's attention, that still doesn't alert creatures in the next room.)

I think an issue here is that some players like to be involved in the "working out" of a powers explanation. Clearly, YMMV here, as other players very much do not want to be in that space.

Thx!

TomBitonti