D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[pemerton]

Upthread I went slightly further. After 4e and its forced movement just about any other RPG and a whole lot of games trying to do tactical combat with larger than life characters and without the array of forced movement feels to me like trying to act in front of a green screen when you are used to there being actual sets. That is something I value and that makes the world feel a whole lot more alive.

My thinking is heading in a different direction, maybe because more recently I've been playing less tactical games.

In Prince Valiant all PCs are on the same chassis (two stats, plus skills from a list of 29) and all resolution is via a dice pool rolled either vs an opposed pool or a target number. By @Lanefan's criterion this is all same-y.

But when a PC charges with a lance to unhorse a foe; or tries to advance over a wall or pallisade; or swings on a rope from a castle wall to rescue a damsel who is being pursued; it all feels quite different because it is the fiction, and the way play engages and changes the fiction, that is key. At least for me.

 

[Oofta]

My point is that there is no such power. Your buddy was not applying the relevant rules.

Is it pedantic to think that analysis and criticism of a game should have regard to the actual rules of the game?

You need to be wielding a light thrown weapon. Singular. It says nothing about needing more than one. Maybe we all played the game wrong and it was just poorly worded and misleading. Maybe it worked because he had a magic dagger, like everyone did after a level or two.

Want to tell me again how this power doesn't exist?

Now maybe this power is perfectly fine for you as a martial exploit. I think it belongs in an anime cartoon or video game. But stop claiming that it didn't exist.

EDIT: whether you needed 1 dagger or 100, it doesn't really change my opinion an this power supernatural nature.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But when a PC charges with a lance to unhorse a foe; or tries to advance over a wall or pallisade; or swings on a rope from a castle wall to rescue a damsel who is being pursued; it all feels quite different because it is the fiction, and the way play engages and changes the fiction, that is key. At least for me.

And this, I think, is why I find non-4e D&D combat so uninspiring and sometimes refer to it as playing patty-cake until someone falls over. "Number go down (but not to zero)" doesn't change the options on the table in the slightest and when you are on 1hp you are still as strong and mobile as when on full hit points.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You need to be wielding a light thrown weapon. Singular. It says nothing about needing more than one. Maybe we all played the game wrong and it was just poorly worded and misleading. Maybe it worked because he had a magic dagger, like everyone did after a level or two.

View attachment 119301

Want to tell me again how this power doesn't exist?

No. I want to tell you to look up the actual rules for what a blast is. @pemerton has already quoted them in this thread.

And then I want you to apologise for spreading falsehoods even after being corrected about them, but I really don't expect that.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Folks, I can fix your conflict in about 15 seconds by booting you both from the thread. It is two clicks and typing two usernames - super easy for me to do. I expect neither of you will be happy with that result, but it will stop your petty bickering, seeing as you don't see capable of disengaging on your own. Consider this your inducement to do so.

 

[MichaelSomething]

And this, I think, is why I find non-4e D&D combat so uninspiring and sometimes refer to it as playing patty-cake until someone falls over. "Number go down (but not to zero)" doesn't change the options on the table in the slightest and when you are on 1hp you are still as strong and mobile as when on full hit points.

Can't the same be said of 5E and of D&D in general???

 

[Lanefan]

No. I want to tell you to look up the actual rules for what a blast is. @pemerton has already quoted them in this thread.

I didn't see where pemerton posted them, but searching on ye olde google sure isn't much help. I can easily find that blast affects x-squared number of squares in front of the source provided line of effect exists, where x is the blast's size (e.g. a blast-3 affects a 3x3 area, or 9 squares), and doesn't affect its source. But that's really about all I can find.

Can't quickly find any references to ammunition requirements; as the examples of how blast works all reference AoE spells or effects e.g. dragon breath or burning hands.

Re Blinding Barrage in particular, I did find that the per-hit-target damage was errataed down in 2011 to just be your Dex modifier instead of 2W, if that matters at all.

Reading that Blinding Barrage write-up literally, if I was strictly playing by RAW-to-the-letter I would have interpreted it the same way as Oofta: that you only need to throw one light weapon to get the effect because it specifically states "a light thrown weapon", not pluralized. More likely I'd have assumed this to be a typo, and houseruled it to state you need to be wielding (or at least have very quick access to) at least one for each target.

The only actual reference I found that directly relates to this question is, of all places, in an online google preview of Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition For Dummies (Slavicsek and Baker) where they in fact pluralize "daggers" in their short blurb about the power. (they rank it there as #5 in the top ten Rogue powers)

 

[pemerton]

I didn't see where pemerton posted them, but searching on ye olde google sure isn't much help. I can easily find that blast affects x-squared number of squares in front of the source provided line of effect exists, where x is the blast's size (e.g. a blast-3 affects a 3x3 area, or 9 squares), and doesn't affect its source. But that's really about all I can find.

Can't quickly find any references to ammunition requirements

It's in the PHB, I think on p 271. Here's the earlier post - no need to discuss it further.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, but 4e sucks, don't you know?! So saying any old thing about it, even if factually untrue, is ok.

No. I want to tell you to look up the actual rules for what a blast is. @pemerton has already quoted them in this thread.

And then I want you to apologise for spreading falsehoods even after being corrected about them, but I really don't expect that.

I'm simply telling you how we played the game.

Things like blinding barrage felt very much like anime cartoon to me and not at all close to more traditional fantasy. It would look totally out of place in a LOTR style movie.

In addition, there was no way to dial it back.

But I do apologise for getting sucked back in to an argument I just don't care about. I explained way, way back why I hold my opinion. Like 4E! Go for it! It's just not for me.

 

[Eric V]

I'm simply telling you how we played the game.

Things like blinding barrage felt very much like anime cartoon to me and not at all close to more traditional fantasy. It would look totally out of place in a LOTR style movie.

In addition, there was no way to dial it back.

But I do apologise for getting sucked back in to an argument I just don't care about. I explained way, way back why I hold my opinion. Like 4E! Go for it! It's just not for me.

Fine. Of course, no one is asking you to like 4e. My group moved on from it as well.

It would be nice though, in the future, if you could you please stop mis-representing facets of the game, though? I could see how someone would find one dagger hitting 9 people a turn-off, but then, the power doesn't do that with one dagger. Yet, you were/are arguing that it does. The game has enough faults; it doesn't need new ones manufactured through misconception, and then presented as real.