Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Imaro]

I'm having trouble understanding this definition. Could you help me?

Are you suggesting

1) That "thinking outside the box" does not involve a mechanical resolution to the action?

Nope never said that... though the mechanical resolution for an out of the box maneuver, ability usage, etc. is usually not spelled out in the book and also usually involves some DM arbitration or even fiat.

2) That the game(s) in question do not cover all possibilities of mechanical resolution of actions (such as with the universal ability score check mechanic in all(?) version of D&D)?

No game covers all possibilities in their mechanical resolution, though some try to either limit your actions and/or make your optimal choices so narrow that they encompass the majority of decisions that are made by most players.... As to the "universal" ability score check mechanic in all versions of D&D, well first exactly what an ability score check is has changed across editions, but more importantly even this mechanic still depends on the DM to pass judgement and arbitrate when it comes to whether something is actually possible, the ability used, the difficulty of whatever the action is, bonuses/penalties that should be applied, etc...I don't believe any edition gives you hard rules for all these things well except for in 4e if you choose to play it in the DC's are level appropriate style.

3) That to think outside the box a player has to actively look for actions that aren't covered by the rules?

No not actively, but picking an ability/power/skill/etc. off your sheet and using it exactly within the parameters set by the rules of the game isn't thinking outside the box, it's very much thinking inside the box created by the rules of the game? Or are you arguing otherwise?

 

[Imaro]

OK, this seems to entail that only games that follow process-simulation resolution can permit "thinking outside the box", because games that use non-process simulation resolution don't require GM-fiated departures from the mechanics in order to impact the fiction in unexpected ways.

EDIT: I think @sheadunne's questions (2) and (3) above push in something like the same direction as my inference above.

Nope here's some out of the box thinking for 4e... Using the spell Burning Hands to start a forest fire. Why? Because technically by the rules, the fire keyword does not (contrary to your fiction first arguments) set anything on fire. Whether it does or doesn't is entirely up to the player coming up with the idea to start a fire with the spell and a GM/DM ruling it is possible and what the effect is. Now I don't see 4e as traditionally following process-simulation resolution...

 

[pemerton]

technically by the rules, the fire keyword does not (contrary to your fiction first arguments) set anything on fire.

Can you quote the relevant rule? The only one I know is in the DMG, which says that objects are susceptible to all damage types except psychic, poison and (I think) necrotic, and says that where appropriate (eg a stack of old papers, or (we might extraploate) a forest full of dry tinder) objects might be vulnerable to particular damage types.

By way of anticipation: I assume the the rule you are going to quote is the targeting rule that refers to creatures. The Modlvay Basic fireball spell refers to creatures too, but it was pretty obvious to me when I was 12 years old that a 40' diameter ball of flames might set flammable objects on fire.

 

[Manbearcat]

Nope here's some out of the box thinking for 4e... Using the spell Burning Hands to start a forest fire. Why? Because technically by the rules, the fire keyword does not (contrary to your fiction first arguments) set anything on fire. Whether it does or doesn't is entirely up to the player coming up with the idea to start a fire with the spell and a GM/DM ruling it is possible and what the effect is. Now I don't see 4e as traditionally following process-simulation resolution...

Can you quote the relevant rule? The only one I know is in the DMG, which says that objects are susceptible to all damage types except psychic, poison and (I think) necrotic, and says that where appropriate (eg a stack of old papers, or (we might extraploate) a forest full of dry tinder) objects might be vulnerable to particular damage types.

By way of anticipation: I assume the the rule you are going to quote is the targeting rule that refers to creatures. The Modlvay Basic fireball spell refers to creatures too, but it was pretty obvious to me when I was 12 years old that a 40' diameter ball of flames might set flammable objects on fire.

Hrmm. I'm not sure I'm following precisely where this is going but here is some further help on the subject at hand.

PHB pg 55 and PHB 220 Keywords:

Fire: Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition.

Ignition: The action of setting something on fire or starting to burn.

I've had effects with the fire keyword set things on fire in skill challenges aplenty. I've had effects with fire keywords set alight soft building materials or flammable tapestries/area rugs in plenty of combats. I outlined one at length awhile ago - a propagating Inn fire where the AoE fire continuously spread and anyone caught in it took 5 damage at the start of their turn and was attacked by the hazard vs reflex; 5 ongoing (save ends). I would think that is pretty orthodox.

 

[Hussar]

True, but I think it's very telling that he left that unsaid.

Who says the DM can't let the players pursue a course of action and then later render it untenable? I'm imagining the Fellowship scaling Caradhras, getting trapped in snow, and some player stopping the game and complaining to the DM about how he misled them by letting them try to scale the mountain. Stuff happens.

His position seems to be that the players can fail by their own bad decisions or bad dice rolls, but that the DM cannot allow them to fail otherwise. Which doesn't sound that bad until you start considering the implications.

Umm, they couldn't scale the mountain because they failed their climb check. Done. Had they succeeded in their skill check, then they would have crossed the mountain. Actually, that wouldn't be a climb check to be honest, it's longer than that.

But, if the DM let us screw around for an hour of table time getting ready to climb the mountain, supplying and whatnot, then another hour of actually making rolls and possibly failing, then just says, "Nope, sorry, you cannot pass", then I have no interest in playing with this DM.

The implications here are, don't waste the table's time on dead ends. If it's a dead end, say, "You try to climb the mountain, but, it's impassible" and move on. Perfectly fine. I got no problem with that by and large. But, after screwing around for significant table time? No thanks. I have better things to do with my free time than pursue pointless courses of action.

 

[Hussar]

There seems to be an explicit recognition of "failure as a possibility" when explicitly asked, but whatever the reason, any failure always seems to be a GM unfairly overriding the careful plans of the PC's, which otherwise would guarantee success. After all, they planned the heist long and hard, so it should succeed. And they planned the demon summoning with great care and effort, so they should get their wish. That the GM should raise a possibility of failure just because of the rules is completely unreasonable.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page158#ixzz2iziShSBW

No, they planned the heist, so they should at least be allowed to attempt it. They planned the Demon summoning, SUCCEEDED at the demon summoning and the DM then cheese weasels his way out of that success by exploiting a loophole in the mechanics (Demon can only do it once/month) that, if a player does it (Astral Projection to get infinite wishes) is the sign of a poor player. Why is that not a sign of a bad DM?

The whole Demon summoning thing came up because Wicht insisted that you cannot use a lower level spell to cast a higher level spell. That is now proven false. You can Planar Bind a Glabrezu, yes? You can get a Wish from that bound Glabrezu, yes? Thus, you can cast higher level spells by using lower level ones. End of story.

 

[pemerton]

we're going to do another chamberlain/king scene tomorrow night before we play. This time with a Wizard, a Fighter and a to be determined 3rd. It may involve a Transition Scene before the Action Scene.

I'd like to do one purely online (play by post), and pemerton has kindly offered his capable services, but we would need 2 others.

Attached is a 12th level paladin available for that purpose.

Background:

Thurgon is the descendant of earls (his family's symbol is a bear rampant above a sword dividing a shield), but Auxol, his ancestral estate (1½ days on foot, or about 25 miles, South-east of Adir the nearest large town), fell to the darkness 66 years ago. He has not set foot there now for many years.

Although Auxol is now owned by servants of evil, Thurgon's family continues to manage it. His father is deceased; his mother Xanthippe (now 57 years old) still lives on the estate. So does his older brother Rufus (36 years old). He is the 9th Count of Adir (although for the past 66 years that title has counted for little, having been usurped by others). His 23 year old younger brother, Vuryang, also lives on the estate, with his 18 year old bride Eisette. Thurgon has never met her, but heard news of the wedding some months ago. Xanthippe ensures that the estate serves as a bolthole for refugees. Rufus is sympathetic to their plight, but sees them ultimately as someone else’s problem. His interests are more mundane (it is fairly common knowledge that he has a 3 year old illegitimate son with a middle class townswoman).

Thurgon trained in the Iron Tower, a stronghold of those who serve the Lord of Battle. The symbol of the Tower is crossed battle axes in front of a shield with the sun rising above it. He left the Iron Tower, several years ago now, when the Knight Commander of the order sent him forth into the wilderness. At the time Thrugon did not know why, but more recently he learned that the Iron Tower had fallen to the forces of darkness. In a recent dream sent by the heavens he saw that the former lord of the order is dead, and that he, Thurgon, must now serve as Knight Commander of the Iron Tower. He hopes to recruit new members to the order, and to rally any others that have survived.​

Here is the character sheet (paranthetical adjustments to social skills apply to those who recognise my authority (Diplomacy) and to those who fail to acknowledge it (Intimidate)).View attachment Thurgon 12.pdf

 

[Imaro]

Can you quote the relevant rule? The only one I know is in the DMG, which says that objects are susceptible to all damage types except psychic, poison and (I think) necrotic, and says that where appropriate (eg a stack of old papers, or (we might extraploate) a forest full of dry tinder) objects might be vulnerable to particular damage types.

By way of anticipation: I assume the the rule you are going to quote is the targeting rule that refers to creatures. The Modlvay Basic fireball spell refers to creatures too, but it was pretty obvious to me when I was 12 years old that a 40' diameter ball of flames might set flammable objects on fire.

No, my point is there aren't any rules for things igniting and burning. What is the chance that something does or doesn't catch on fire? How much damage does something burning do to it? How fast does it spread? How about if you add oil too it? That's what I mean there are no rules for using the spell in this manner...

 

[Imaro]

Hrmm. I'm not sure I'm following precisely where this is going but here is some further help on the subject at hand.



Ignition: The action of setting something on fire or starting to burn.

I've had effects with the fire keyword set things on fire in skill challenges aplenty. I've had effects with fire keywords set alight soft building materials or flammable tapestries/area rugs in plenty of combats. I outlined one at length awhile ago - a propagating Inn fire where the AoE fire continuously spread and anyone caught in it took 5 damage at the start of their turn and was attacked by the hazard vs reflex; 5 ongoing (save ends). I would think that is pretty orthodox.

So you made up rules for the ignition and burning of things, that's cool and what I consider going outside the box (if your players initiated) or DM arbitration/fiat if you as the DM decided to make it happen... but 4e doesn't have explicit rules for this stuff... I've played under DM's in 4e that would not have allowed anything to catch on fire from a spell, it would have done its damage to whatever creature. object. etc. it was cast on and that was that.

 

[Manbearcat]

So you made up rules for the ignition and burning of things, that's cool and what I consider going outside the box (if your players initiated) or DM arbitration/fiat if you as the DM decided to make it happen... but 4e doesn't have explicit rules for this stuff... I've played under DM's in 4e that would not have allowed anything to catch on fire from a spell, it would have done its damage to whatever creature. object. etc. it was cast on and that was that.

Unfortunately you've played under some GMs who didn't take the time to understand the trap/hazard/terrain system. The math is explicit and there are plenty of examples in the DMGs to assist in creating of-level fire challenges with explicit rules guidance for the usage of "burn" and "spreading" effects. Dragon magazine expands on the hazard system, significantly. Something like a Raging Fire is ridiculously easy to create (and there is one created for you):

- Size: n * n squares upon ignition.
- Trigger: Target enters or begins its turn in, or adjack6ent to, the fire.
- Attack: Level + 4 vs Ref (combat advantage if you're in fire).
- Damage: Of-level low damage expression + tier-based ongoing fire (save ends)
- Miss: half damage on miss and no ongoing
- Special: Concealment within 2 squares of fire. At the end of each round the fire spreads to 1d4 squares at random.
- Countermeasures: Of-level acrobatics check and attacks with water destroy the squares of fire

Done. That took me a few minutes to write-up, would have been simple to compose on the spot with the fundamental math, and it wasn't made up. That is just using the math and fundamentals of the trap/hazard system. If someone can't be bothered with learning the system, then there are plenty of traps/hazards available in the magazines if they just want to rip those for minimal mental overhead.

I don't know how many fire hazards and single-use terrain features I've improvised over the years using that system but its more than a few.

The trap/terrain/hazard system appears to be as oft-used as the Disease/Curse/Condition Track system. Both are great tools for facilitating various aspects of play.