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

[Maxperson]

Of course not. And I find myself looking up rules more often in 5e than I did with the same amount of experience running 4e. Every time I need to look up a spell that's looking up a rule. Meanwhile if I want to create a monster 5e provides me with its 20 step process.

And yet I just made one for my 5e Ravenloft game that was very successful and I didn't even bother to open the DMG. ::

If you want to be bound to the rules, that's your choice.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As written, that seems straightforward and obvious enough, meaning that the Blinding Barrage write-up is really just a typo.

Strange that they didn't errata it, though, in process of reviewing it to errata the damage.

The blinding barrage isn't a typo. What the blinding barrage weapon type means is that you can't use blinding barrage with e.g. greataxes or even longbows or javelins. It doesn't remove the ammunition requirement, just restricts things further.

 

[Maxperson]

My claim is that there are 960 pages of core rulebook, all of them large pages for 5e. If you are trying for "rulings not rules" and you end up with 960 pages of rules then something went badly wrong somewhere.

I just realized that my response to this someone didn't make it into the other post.

You do realize that a huge number of pages in the DMG aren't even rules, right? And that there are very, very few rules in the MM. Stat blocks aren't rules. Your estimate if 960 pages is waaaaaaaaay off.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And yet I just made one for my 5e Ravenloft game that was very successful and I didn't even bother to open the DMG. ::

If you want to be bound to the rules, that's your choice.

Did you bother to open the PHB? Ever, for any spell when in play?

Because that's where I was for 4e in only a couple of months.

And if you mean you made a monster while ignoring the DMG monster creation rules then what you are saying is that the guidance for the monster creation in the DMG is something you found objectively not worth using. I'd tend to agree. They are bad rules that make things actively harder for the DM - and therefore worse than a simple waste of ink.

Meanwhile I don't bother to open the 4e monster creation rules not because they are useless but for the very opposite reason. They are simple and clean enough that I do not need to look at them.

 

[pemerton]

In a game like Dungeons and Dragons, which has had a strong tradition of homebrewing from the very beginning of its existence. How much do we really need to state "you can choose to change these rules"?

Because, I don't think I would see 4e as disempowering simply because it did not tell the DM, "you can change any rule in this book, these are simply guidelines" because I feel like it is understood that that is how DnD works.

If you are picking up a new game, because you were an active player of a prior edition, then you've probably been exposed to the idea. If you are a new player, picking it up for the first time and reading the rules as your only guide, the tradition is unknown to you, and so the text will dominate your initial approach to the game.

Some of this is conjecture on a fairly thin evidence base.

But surely it's relevant that the 4e DMG has a secion called House Rules. that advises GMs on how to go about changing rules and testing those rules.

Take page 42 of the DMG. It's very clear on informing the DM on how to rule improvised actions. You use the table for damage, rather than coming up with something. You give +2/-2, rather than, up to +2/-2 or "We suggest +2/-2, but it's up to you." It's very constraining on the DM. The DM has to fight the PG 42 rules in order to go outside of them, rather than being empowered to do so.

Moldvay Basic suggests resolving actions for which there are no specific resolution rules by making a d20-based stat check, or making a percentage roll. It doesn't suggest using a coin toss, or an arm wrestle between participants.

Gygax's DMG suggests a percentage roll. Again, no coin tosses or arm wrestles are suggested.

Are these failures to empower? Every game has it's own internal logic. And every RPG has some sort of logic to its resolution system. For 4e, in the context of resolving improvised attack actions, why would a GM need to fight page 42? It offers 6 options for damage (low, medium and high for normal and limited sorts of action).

It implicitly canvasses conditions/effects (the worked example includes a 1 sq push together with damage) but doesn't give good advice on these. That was subsequently rectified by a column on the WotC website (by wrecan).

It mentions +/-2. This is the same as the modifier for partial concealment/cover. An astute GM will notice that the modifier for total concealment/cover is -5, and hence might infer that when circumstances are not just especially (un)favourable (the wording on p 42) but overwhelmingly (un)favourable (my wording) the modifier should be +/-5. (This would be somewhat comparable to advantage/disadvantage in 5e D&D.) Page 42 would have been more complete had it mentioned this, although perhaps the designers thought it was a good feature of design not to prod GMs too strongly in the direction of such big modifiers.

From these guidelines, a thoughtful GM or player can work out the broad parameters and tolerances of the system. That the system has parameters and tolerances doesn't seem to be a weakness of it. Every system has such things.

Perhaps one doesn't like a system where the parameters are so clearly stated. I don't really see how empowerment helps explain what is going on there, though.

I'm also reminded here of arguments put in earlier threads that the maximum DC a GM in 5e D&D can set is 30, because that's what's mentioned on the DC chart. Whether right or wrong, that such arguments are run suggests that a GM who wants to set a DC above 30 (or below 5?) has to "fight" the DC chart. Does that mean that 5e doesn't empower either? The implication of these arguments seems to be that the most empowering form of RPG would be one with no resolution mechanics at all - that tells the participants, or the GM, to just decide what happens. If that's what is being said, it would be clearer to get it out there in the open.

 

[Maxperson]

And if you mean you made a monster while ignoring the DMG monster creation rules then what you are saying is that the guidance for the monster creation in the DMG is something you found objectively not worth using. I'd tend to agree. They are bad rules that make things actively harder for the DM - and therefore worse than a simple waste of ink.

I'm saying that I could have and may use them in the future, but I wanted to use a monster from 2e Ravenloft and forgot to make it, so I just made it up on the spot. The players thought it was awesome. Rulings and not rules. I didn't feel obligated to use the 5e rule, because 5e isn't about that. The rules specifically by RAW serve the DM, not the other way around.(Page 4 of the DMG, left column, most of the way down).

 

[Lanefan]

The blinding barrage isn't a typo. What the blinding barrage weapon type means is that you can't use blinding barrage with e.g. greataxes or even longbows or javelins. It doesn't remove the ammunition requirement, just restricts things further.

The typo is that it references a singular light thrown weapon where it should reference plural, as a reminder that you need one per target. (and also to remind that not all the light thrown weapons need be the same - one could, I suppose, when targeting seven people in the blast throw daggers at three of them and shurikins at the rest)

With a crossbow or sling it's easy to assume you'd be using a bunch of ammo to generate the effect, no problem there.

 

[pemerton]

As written, that seems straightforward and obvious enough, meaning that the Blinding Barrage write-up is really just a typo.

Strange that they didn't errata it, though, in process of reviewing it to errata the damage.

It doesn't need errata. It uses the same requirement language as most rogue powers. With a thrown weapon you can use the power. You just can't attack more than one target in the area, if you've got only one (non-magical) dagger.

The relevance of a magical weapon is stated on p 232 of the PHB:

Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon, from the lowly +1 shuriken to a +6 perfect hunter’s spear, automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved.
​

(This is one of those recurrent cases where the use of attack as a technical term has the potential to cause confusion. But the intention seems clear enough.)

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't need errata. It uses the same requirement language as most rogue powers. With a thrown weapon you can use the power. You just can't attack more than one target in the area, if you've got only one (non-magical) dagger.

The relevance of a magical weapon is stated on p 232 of the PHB:

Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon, from the lowly +1 shuriken to a +6 perfect hunter’s spear, automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved.​

(This is one of those recurrent cases where the use of attack as a technical term has the potential to cause confusion. But the intention seems clear enough.)

Agreed the intent seems clear enough. The only thing left out is specific timing - does it return immediately (i.e. during the same action such that it can be thrown again), or at end of action, end of round, or... ? "After the attack is resolved" is a bit vague.

Makes throwable magic weapons much more valuable across the board, that's for sure! Returning weapons are rare as unicorns in 1e...

Also takes out any threat of the weapon being lost if a throw goes badly e.g. it misses the target and sails over a cliff or into a pool of acid. That aspect I'd find a bit disappointing, I think, as it takes away the risk-reward choice of whether to throw it at a target standing near a clifftop or a hazard dangerous to the weapon.

 

[Umbran]

Some of this is conjecture on a fairly thin evidence base.

So, please, do tell me how someone who sees the book on a shelf, and picks it up, with no prior contact with the gaming community is going to know the tradition? Are you figuring it comes through the Jungian collective subconscious, or something?

Traditions are communicated by people. Is it "conjecture on thin evidence" to say that someone who does not have contact with the people is highly unlikely to have it communicated?