D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[Remathilis]

Which is something your character doesn't know. He doesn't know how much luck or divine favor he has left, for instance. For that matter, 'realistically,' it's devilishly hard to tell how badly wounded you are, yourself, just by how much it hurts or how you feel.

Which was kinda my point: it doesn't "measure" anything happening in the fiction until you hit 0 and drop. Nobody can tell how damaging a hit was exactly, so since HP is basically plot-armor vs. death, an invisible action to heal (second wind) or visible action (healing kits, cure wounds) doesn't bother me. Its not like 1 hp = 1 scar, and healing removes the scar.

However, its also not trying to narrate the fiction to me either.

 

[keterys]

Come and Get It is a good example of a power that would have gotten a tiny fraction of the ire it got if it had instead been on a magic using class instead. As a paladin power, for example.

I don't think it was a good idea for it to be in the first PHB.

 

[Alzrius]

You mean like: "You cannot try to pick the lock again until you've gained a level"?

-just trying to stay edition neutral.

That was stupid too. Take 20 at least tried to emulate the "if at first you don't succeed" idea...

'nuff said.

 

[TwoSix]

This isn't an issue of dissociation, or players having narrative control outside of character agency, however. The question of effectiveness is outside of the scope of whether or not you get to perform the attempt in the first place.

Sure, but this thread isn't about dissociation, it's about 4e and summarizing the experience.

Insofar as I'm aware, most 4E powers don't codify they narrative. Rather, they allow for a limited-use of a metagame mechanic. The narrative is still determined as it would be otherwise.

I agree, 90% of 4e powers don't require any sort "may be dissociative" trigger warnings. It's just a useful construct for the other 10% (and doesn't exclude the previous 90%).

I disagree here. It's not about the rules supporting the end result you want to see - it's about the rules codifying the nature of task-resolution; and even in that regard, they're only going to be able to cover so much. The end result you "want to see" might not happen - the important thing is that you get to try.

But that's kind of the point. The rules are about trying to generate cool combats, with lots of different things going on. That's the point of encounter powers, to create variance. No one logically expects a game with random elements and opposing sides to play out exactly how they would expect.

That's largely a semantic difference - the wider principles we're discussing still hold even if a particular example isn't apt.

Not really. "Trip is now an encounter power" sounds like a restriction. There is no such restriction in 4e, you can try to knock someone down as often as you would like.

I understand, I just don't find that to be a very compelling line of reasoning. Why have two different sets of mechanics for resolving the same task (one being a character power, the other being what you and the GM come up with)? Why not just use the exact same mechanics whenever someone wants to perform a Spinning Hurricane Slash? Likewise, if the special power is one that has any sort of association with it, and that only happens once, then it's clear that you're not performing the same technique every other time, which brings you back to square one.

Why not? Because you don't want the player to do Spinning Hurricane Slash every turn. It's supposed to be special. So the system makes sure doing it more than once has disincentives.
Again, you may not like that aesthetic or disapprove of the design choice, but let's not pretend it's been done in error or doesn't make any sense.

Those aren't character resources, then; they're player resources. They're also somewhat wasted, since the characters can already do that anyway with different mechanics, which strikes me as being a very inelegant design. It's like saying that once per day, you have the ability to hit on an attack roll of 51 or better on a d100, rather than on a 11 or better on a d20. Having two different ways to do the exact same thing doesn't seem useful.

Yea, except one does 1dX+Y damage and trips, and also succeeds on an 8+ on a d20, whereas the other just trips, and only succeeds on a 14+. Seems like a valid resource to me.

That's because character resources (to me) represent something that a character would use to make an attempt to begin with.

And that's fine (for you). But that isn't what it HAS to mean. "I don't like it" is not the same as "doesn't make sense."

The problem is that this ability requires an action on the part of the fighter, which narrates that he's doing something, which causes a dissociation. That's leaving aside the issues of only receiving this ability as part of a class (which has an in-character understanding of being training, or more rarely, innate abilities)...and possibly of level (I say that because levels have a - admittedly nebulous - characterization of overall character aptitude; I'll admit this one is iffy though).

I've never thought as "actions" as being character resources. It would imply the characters are aware they exist in a stop-action universe.

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, if you subscribe to the whole Vancian concept, a spell isn't something you know how to do - it's a mental payload, a hand grenade you prepare from a book. Once it's cast, it's complete gone. And you can only carry so many spells in your head before you - I don't know, blow up or something.

There is a conceptual problem of why you can't just reload a spell - if I recall, Gygax had the original rules for spell prep be very time consuming, so you wouldn't do it during an adventure anyway. You might not even reload your high level spells until you got back to town and had a few days.

Right, but I've just been told that a vancian caster doesn't know (or maybe doesn't need to know) what spells he's putting in his payload...at least not by name. Which seems to imply that an old school vancian caster doesn't actually choose the spells, that in fact it is that caster's player who makes the decisions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Come and Get It is a good example of a power that would have gotten a tiny fraction of the ire it got if it had instead been on a magic using class instead. As a paladin power, for example.

I don't think it was a good idea for it to be in the first PHB.

If anything, there should have been more powers like it added: a hundred or so, for a Martial Controller class, for instance.

 

[Seule]

I describe 4e as by far the best-balanced and interesting tactical battlemat RPG ever made. Nothing else I've tried can rival it, everyone always has interesting choices and different classes play differently. It came with several problems however. The skill challenges while they did encourage some interesting character choices seriously undermine RP in many cases and the entire game just doesn't place much emphasis on roleplay at all, leading to most games I've been involved in focussing on what the next combat is going to be. That's the interesting part in the system, that's where the focus is. If that's the kind of game you want it's unparallelled, if not then play something else (or be prepared to stretch the system where it doesn't naturally go).

 

[keterys]

If anything, there should have been more powers like it added: a hundred or so, for a Martial Controller class, for instance.

A fighter often exerts as much control as any controller, until high levels Bash and Pummel is a good example of a strong and versatile martial control power that few should find "realism" problems with. It's also not weaker than most non-martial powers, which is often the route people take on the "martial can't have fun toys" route.

That said, note that I said in the PHB. Come and Get It in a later product? Sure, whatever. WotC should have put their best foot forward, and oftentimes did not do so. Shame, really.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Right, but I've just been told that a vancian caster doesn't know (or maybe doesn't need to know) what spells he's putting in his payload...at least not by name. Which seems to imply that an old school vancian caster doesn't actually choose the spells, that in fact it is that caster's player who makes the decisions.

Were you told this in this thread and I missed it?

An old school vancian caster definitely picks his spells - I'm assuming from a spellbook here, since Jack Vance didn't have clerics like that as far as I know - since the spells are clearly labeled in his book as to their identity. One could suggest that you could mislabel a spell, or have an ignorant (Rincewind?) caster who doesn't know what he's doing - but he definitely says "I'm preparing the spell on this page that says 'fireball'".

If you were referring to clerics - I do remember some vague line from Gygax that the cleric might not get the spells he prays for - which would be like going to the quartermaster and saying "give me three frag grenades" and he says "not in your mission spec, take this radio".

 

[Minigiant]

Here is the Cliff Notes.

4e was The struggle of D&D fans and designers trying to remove "Welp. That was anticlimactic." from the table.