D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[Imaro]

Snip for Brevity

What about monsters in 4e that have powers to negate certain abilities? As an example, I was playing in an encounters game (the Neverwinter season I believe) where I played a Bladesinger and tried to use a power that knocked creatures prone... come to find out, this dragon had some type of immunity to going prone and my power didn't work against it. Where, in this situation, was I aware of the chances of knocking that creature prone?

 

[Balesir]

What about monsters in 4e that have powers to negate certain abilities? As an example, I was playing in an encounters game (the Neverwinter season I believe) where I played a Bladesinger and tried to use a power that knocked creatures prone... come to find out, this dragon had some type of immunity to going prone and my power didn't work against it. Where, in this situation, was I aware of the chances of knocking that creature prone?

I'm not familiar with the Encounters adventures nor, without further information, with the dragon you're referring to, but a few answers/comments spring to mind:

- If it was a creature power then Knowledge checks would have (potentially) given you the information, as with any other monster power.

- I generally don't much like flat-out immunities, and they are fairly uncommon (apart from obvious and generic ones, like undead immunity to disease and poison) in early 4e. With Essentials, however, some eliding went on (a couple of loosey-goosey Wizard spells and such) that might have included this.

- Was the immunity to going prone, or to the power that caused it? For instance, was the dragon immune to fear?

In general and in short - I would need more information to answer well.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not familiar with the Encounters adventures nor, without further information, with the dragon you're referring to, but a few answers/comments spring to mind:

- If it was a creature power then Knowledge checks would have (potentially) given you the information, as with any other monster power.

- I generally don't much like flat-out immunities, and they are fairly uncommon (apart from obvious and generic ones, like undead immunity to disease and poison) in early 4e. With Essentials, however, some eliding went on (a couple of loosey-goosey Wizard spells and such) that might have included this.

- Was the immunity to going prone, or to the power that caused it? For instance, was the dragon immune to fear?

In general and in short - I would need more information to answer well.

The DM said the dragon could not be knocked prone. If someone else has that season of encounters perhaps they can verify the exact power and wording...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

As I and some others pointed out upthread of your post, this looks like an attempted mixture of oil and water.

A certain sort of "old schooler" wants to play a low-complexity, low hp PC. Fine. But newbies should not be let anywhere near such PC builds! Newbies should not be using the system where you find out whether or not your PC lives as part of gettting a feel for him/her. If anything, newbies need more hit points, because they have less sense of what is required to avoid losing them and thus are in greater danger of doing so.

Both types of gamer can easily fit in the same space. The newbie is confronted with survivable challanges. Per the article:

"In terms of the story, characters are (as the tier name says) apprentices. They're just starting out and are learning the ropes of their basic class features. Characters level fairly quickly. For instance, in the Keep on the Borderlands, your first adventure might be an expedition to discover the fate of an elf who disappeared in the forest south of the keep. In about two hours of play, you encounter a wandering band of lizardfolk, battle a nest of spiders, recover the elf's remains, and head back to the keep. That's enough to earn 2nd level. To reach 3rd level, you play for about two to four hours and deal with a bigger threat, such as tracking down and defeating a bandit gang."

The old school players would deal with the bigger threats at first level.

 

[pemerton]

Well, now you're just contradicting me.

And citing the relevant text from two core rulebooks. Or is rulebook text now not relevant to understanding how a game is meant to run?

To put it another way: what is the basis, in the 4e books, for assuming that there can be fire damage without the Fire keyword, or a scary effect without the Fear keyword? (Don't you remember the debate around the illusionist powers with the wonky keywords in Dragon magazine, that were fixed up before publication in Arcane Power?)

Or for denying that "story" - like the narration of a chasm, or a wall - doesn't affect resolution - eg via the falling rules, or the cover rules?

How does your table work out when the falling rules or the cover rules come into play, if not by refrence to the "story" - ie the shared fiction as it has been established at the table?

EDIT:

I don't really know what you think your leprechaun's power proves about the actual design sensibilities of 4e. By what standards are you asserting that it is a well-designed 4e power? Look at the Harper Agent theme in Neverwinter Campaign Guide, for instance: when the theme benefit is an item (a Harper pin) that confers a benefit it is statted as an item, not a power. Why is your magical leprechaun-housing shield not statted as an item?

And how do you resolve (say) attempts by another character (PC or NPC) to take down the leprechauns using an immediate, opportunity or free action? Summoning and conjuration powers carry rules that answer such questions.

I'm completely failing to follow your line of argument, and how it bears on the (in my view interesting) question of 4e's approach to fictional positioning - interesting in part because the importance of fictional positioning is I think one key feature that distinguishes a RPG from other, potentially similar, games like board games, wargames, etc.

FURTHER EDIT:

Does the following spell that I just wrote up prove that classic D&D wizards are broken?

Powerful spell of doom
Level: 1
Range: unlimited
AoE: 1 target
Effect: You speak the name of one person or creature you dislike and it immediately meets its doom: it dies, is crushed by a falling building, struck by a runaway cart, sinks to the centre of the earth, or otherwise meets a horrible end. This doom grants no saving throw.​

I personally don't think so, give that my spell in no way complies with the design senibilities or examples that are part of classic D&D. Classic D&D wizards may or may not be broken, but my spell makes no contribution to that debate.

 

[VinylTap]

An honest thank you to all the 4th players articulating some of their thoughts on game mechanics. Its interesting to see the other side spelled out a little better.

I like the idea of the DM coddling the noobs more than throwing them a bunch of training wheels. I think it gets down to a fairly interesting separation between the two (or 3 even ) games. DM empowerment vs. player empowerment, if you will. As a DM, you can coddle without making it seem like you're coddling, using suspense and levels of perceived danger. I know they need a cushion, but throwing low powered enemies to fight is a good way to do that, as good as throwing around AP.

So 5th wants to empower the DM, and give him tools to help new players ease into the game while 4th ed players want more tools to go to the players to give them a more active experience in the game. I think that's somewhat valid.

I like the mechanic of apprentice levels, but not Mike's suggested execution of them. Making the power discrepancy even more pronounced does lead to some limits, and probably a fariyl harsh stigma around starting at level 1. I'd like to see characters with "a hit and a crit to down them", maybe 3 normal hits to down (on average). But pulling back the player power to '1 cantrip, one spell' and not much else maybe leans it a little too far back. I still think a 'level zero' is worth considering (PC's with no class, but the building blocks of one (naturally talented at sneaking, etc. Knows a little magic, etc)

Giving a good sense of power ramp over the first few levels is important to the momentum of the game, and carries a more traditional feel. You don't feel as empowered, if you've been empowered all the way along. Its an important and powerful psychological effect that the game can carry if done correctly. Getting rid of it is too drastic. Giving a more "standard" (or official) platform, for heroic characters to jump onto at say level 3 or 4, as a general mechanic, seems like a good way to give most people what they want, imo.

 

[pemerton]

Both types of gamer can easily fit in the same space. The newbie is confronted with survivable challanges. Per the article:

"In terms of the story, characters are (as the tier name says) apprentices. They're just starting out and are learning the ropes of their basic class features. Characters level fairly quickly. For instance, in the Keep on the Borderlands, your first adventure might be an expedition to discover the fate of an elf who disappeared in the forest south of the keep. In about two hours of play, you encounter a wandering band of lizardfolk, battle a nest of spiders, recover the elf's remains, and head back to the keep. That's enough to earn 2nd level.

It's also more than enough to get killed! A first level PC has 8 to 15 hp. A lizardperson attacks twice per round for 4 or 6 damage on a hit; a spider once for 6 damage plus 9 poison damage on a failed save!

The D&D level system, especially in its contemporary form, connects PC complexity and PC survivability, especially at low levels and especially without the CON kicker or some other comprable bonus to starting hit points. I can see how this makes some sense if your design goal is to replicate a certain sort of D&D experience. But I can't see how it has any connection to introducing beginners.

Beginners, at least in my (admittedly limited) experience want simple PCs, who are survivable, but who get involved in real action. Real action in D&D means real chances of damage; survivability therefore mandates some sort of hp or Fate Point-style buffer.

I thought the idea that Mearls et al were mooting last year, that newbies would play regular PCs but with the complexity somehow shorn off or folded in via prefab choices and the like, made a lot of sense - decouple the newbie problem from the levelling mechanic. But this new proposal makes no sense to me at all, as far as newbies are concerned (whereas the OSR-ish gritty bit does make some sense, even if I find it a bit weird that the default starting level is 3 rather than 1).

 

[I'm A Banana]

You could imagine the game world working that way, if you wanted to, but it wouldn't change the rules one iota and it would be much simpler to just take the words as having their normal meanings. How is that anything but a strength? Unless you rely on wordsmithing to warp the rules to your advantage, I can't see how it can be.

I've been talking about the down sides of 4e's separation of story and mechanics for years at this point. If you're a fan of overwrought jaron, google yourself some ludonarrative dissonance, and have fun.

It can be a positive, and a game without it would suck as much as a game that relied on it, and different tables and different players have different thresholds of tolerance for it, but to assume that it is always an everywhere good for everyone and should be adopted as The Rule where possible is to be bit under-educated about how other people play this game, and how they have fun with it.

The DM can describe a scene such that the player thinks there is an opportunity in it; if the DM agrees, then they can take advantage of it, but if the DM isn't thinking in the same "groove" then the opportunity may not "really" exist.

And if no one is a jerk, then this is not a problem. The DM makes a ruling, and you move on.

To put it another way: what is the basis, in the 4e books, for assuming that there can be fire damage without the Fire keyword, or a scary effect without the Fear keyword?

I didn't see anything in the books about requiring me to assign keywords to every effect in the game based solely on its descriptive properties in the fiction (especially if it doesn't come from a power). I possibly could've missed it. Though quite to the contrary, I'm frequently told that the Rules are the Rules, whatever the story says (prone oozes, et al).

 

[DMZ2112]

But newbies should not be let anywhere near such PC builds!

Oh, goodness, yes. Protect the newbies! They are dumb as rocks and don't realize how much more dangerous than the XBox tabletop roleplaying can be! Don't let them have an experience they might not forget! Heavens!

Newbies need a system with (i) less complexity in player options, and hence in PC build, but (ii) more survivability than an experienced player typically needs in a starting PC. Those needs are not served by the system Mearls is proposing, because his system is based on the level paradigm, where low complexity is anchored to low level, which is in turn anchored to low hit points, which means the a newbie's first experience is likely to be having his/her PC die.

This unthinkable system you describe worked just fine from 1973 to 2008. We were all newbies once, and many of us had extremely positive first experiences despite the risks engendered by early D&D. You can believe what you want, but stop stating it as fact. I'm annoyed enough that this thread has been hijacked -- with a mod's support, no less -- just because someone had the audacity to make a factual observation about "your" edition.

Fourth edition is a lemon popsicle, and anyone who likes it is an untied left shoe.

@Warbringer made the additional observation that, in practice, many GMs of new and/or young players allow rerolls, fudge dice etc. And my suggestion would be a way of formalising that while shifting power over the PC from the GM to the player, and hence giving the newbie a truer taste of what RPGing is about.

"A truer taste," my butt.

 

[pemerton]

I've been talking about the down sides of 4e's separation of story and mechanics for years at this point.

And for at least some of that time I've been pointing out that you're ignoring the crucial role of keywords. From time to time others (eg [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]) have made a similar point.

Reiteration on its own doesn't make the case; but it's not even really about making a case. No doubt you have had the experiences of 4e that you've had, including GMs who don't use page 42 and who don't pay any attention to the rules for engaging with the scenery. (I'm not sure how these GMs adjudicated Transmute Rock to Mud back in the old days, but that's an inquiry for another time.)

What I'm curious about is why you treat this not as an interesting fact about your GMs, and rather as evidence of the design sensibilities of the game, even though the text comes close to flat-out contradicting this approach.

And if no one is a jerk, then this is not a problem. The DM makes a ruling, and you move on.

Do you realise that what you are desribing here is about 180 degrees opposed to what I, and I think [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], and perhaps also (in this thread) [MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] and maybe Obryn, among others, are looking for from their RPG play?

I don't want to hear the GM narrate a story. As GM I don't want to narrate a story. I want rules that will permit multiple contributions to be combined into a single shared story without any single person having sole author or veto rights.