D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[soviet]

The power doesn't include movement from their space, so I guess 4e says that.

But the power isn't the only action they get in a round. If my fighter moves past someone before they use CAGI, doesn't that count?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Indiana Jones Trait:

* I'm in a movie (not a TTRPG) and I'm the protagonist.

or

* Immune to Melee or Ranged Forced Movement (like Swarms...which is a Trait, which are exceptions in the exception-based design engine of 4e, that you can add to whatever at your discretion).

or

* I've got a high Will defense and I rolled well enough to pass the one time this happened onscreen (and/or I've got an Immediate Action that gives me a bonus to all defenses or +4 to Will or reroll a failure or to ignore Forced Movement or whatever).

---

We're still doing this 15 years later!

Its SOOOOOO important that 4e is dumb and terrible and nonsensical!

Someone asked what the issue was with CaGI, and I expressed my feelings on the subject.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Didn't play 4e, so googling things..the distance appears to be "burst 3", which appears to correlate to within 3 5ft. squares of the fighter.

I haven't seen a lot of castles, but I can buy a 15 ft ladder at Home Depot, and I feel like they don't scale the equipment at Home Depot for medieval sieges?

I don't see how this statement has anything to do with what I said.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But the power isn't the only action they get in a round. If my fighter moves past someone before they use CAGI, doesn't that count?

Sure, but the power works whether or not the fighter moves, regardless of circumstance, so long as the target is within range when the action is taken. That's my point.

 

[soviet]

Again, that's the whole problem I have with 4e. The rules widget is king, so the players have to make it make sense (if they care to; there's no obligation), and there's nothing else to it. The explanation doesn't affect anything that's happening when the rules widget is used, so you're not exactly encouraged to put much effort into it.

I know for some this is no problem at all, perhaps to such a degree that it's hard to fathom other points of view. But believe me, those other points of view exist.

Describing what you do when you engage the rules widget is definitional to playing an RPG though.

If your players don't care whether describing what they do makes any sense unless they have to, and even then they won't put much effort into it, I suggest to you that the problem is not with the rules.

 

[soviet]

Sure, but the power works whether or not the fighter moves, regardless of circumstance, so long as the target is within range when the action is taken. That's my point.

OK, but again, the expectation is that the player comes up with a reasonable description of what they do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Describing what you do when you engage the rules widget is definitional to playing an RPG though.

If your players don't care whether describing what they do makes any sense unless they have to, and even then they won't put much effort into it, I suggest to you that the problem is not with the rules.

I'd much rather have the rules define how something happens than have the participants make something up every time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am aware of this.

From the fact, though, that X cannot imagine how a skilled warrior might wrongfoot a zombie it doesn't follow that CaGI is telepathy. I mean, do these people also have zombies being immune to trip attacks in 3E D&D?

You're asking for people to see things as parallel that they don't. Do I have to explain why this is a fool's errand?

 

[Micah Sweet]

OK, but again, the expectation is that the player comes up with a reasonable description of what they do.

An expectation I have no interest in. As I said above, this is my problem with 4e. It is a preference, just like having no problem with making something up on the spot is a preference.

 

[tomBitonti]

The onus is on the player to explain what they're doing though, right? You don't expect players to just say 'I use come and get it' with no other explanation, especially where it might not be obvious how it would work. Just like you probably wouldn't accept 'I use diplomacy' with no other explanation.

I agree that something like paralysis probably shouldn't work, unless there's a very good explanation offered. But the sleeping one is easy - I wake them up. The incorporeal one is easy - I say something to enrage/lure them. The people are unaware of you one is easy - I make them aware of me. The entangled one is easy - they find a way to get out, or I release them.

I played a 4e fighter with Come and Get It and I always found a good justification. I used it against some sword wraiths by drawing on the power of my magic sword which has anti-undead powers. I used it against some wolf monsters by using my barbarian multiclass stuff to emit a primal roar of challenge against them. I don't recall an instance where I used it and there wasn't a decent explanation.

Well, what other abilities require the player explain how the power works, in a particular use? I thought the ethos of 4E was that such explanations were not required, and the player could choose whatever interpretation they preferred. And, that ultimately, the interpretation was entirely fluff. The ability worked regardless.
Contrast, say, with, a fictitious “area burst” damaging attack ability, which left unspecified the type of damage was inflicted. I think players would be annoyed to explain the ability worked, and be subject to the GM saying, sorry, the creature is immune to your fire burst.
TomB