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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Definitely odd, in that you show it as having CG twice and LE not at all.

THE POWERS OF CHAOS!!!!!!

 

[pemerton]

In the 4E description no details are given (nor are needed) as to how the target gets moved. Were they caused to stumble closer? Were they made to be dis-oriented and caused to move to a location not of their choice, but of the attacker's? Were they goaded into moving next to the attacker? Were they literally dragged closer by the attacker hooking them and moving them closer? Did the attacker mentally take control of their facilities and compel them to move? (One could argue that some form of trickery or a taunt is permitted as an explanation, and a hook is not permitted, since the attack is against Will.)

As I think I posted upthread, I never used the errata-ed version which I regard as an error, and an unnecessary concession to people who didn't actually like or play the game.

The 3.5E bull rush ability is much more strongly described than the 4E Come And Get It. While there are details of exactly how the target was pushed with bull rush -- Did the attacker give them a shove with both hands? Did the attacker give them a strong kick? Did the attacker hunch behind their shield and forcefully plow into the defender? -- None of these rises to the level of detail which must be provided to explain a use of Come and Get It, and none is categorically different than the others (all involve a physical push; none involve trickery or mind control or hooking the target).

One could try to correct CAGI by adding a description:

• Your dazzling display of prowess causes the target to be momentarily confused. You pull the target up to 2 squares to an adjacent square.
• Your deadly weave of attacks leaves the opponent no defensible option except to move closer.
• You unleash a torrent of vile insults that the target cannot ignore.
• You leave yourself apparently vulnerable, causing the opponent to rush forward, heedless of the strength of your position and the awaiting attack.

All of which sound fine, but all of which work better if CAGI had not baked in Strength vs Will. In each case, I'd want a different attack combination, and would apply different defensive modifiers depending on the defender.

In what way is any of this a correction?

CaGI it is a power that permits a class build around the idea of being an amazing warrior, who exercises tremendous battlefield control, to demonstrate their puissance by exercising battlefield control. It permits the narration of that, on any given occasion of use, to reflect what is happening in the situation at hand. Why would narrowing its applicability make the ability better?

Which turns this into a different problem: CAGI simply having bad design, as most supplied descriptions of how it works might want a different check and different defensive modifiers.

As @soviet posted upthread, CaGI - the power published in the 4e PHB, pre-errata - is terrific design. It allows players of fighters to have their fighters do exciting things that produce memorable fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

I wanted to comment briefly on this one point.

Personally, I really like the addition of "unaligned." It makes sense that there would be people that just ... don't ... care ... about the larger picture (whatever it might be).

That said, I will always have a soft-spot for True Neutral (aka, Gygaxian Muscular Neutral) because the idea of people going out and taking out the baddies and goodies to, you know, preserve the balance? That's some BPE (Big Pulp Energy) right there!

I see your "unaligned" as being more "passive neutral", where muscular neutral would be a more "active neutral". They're both still neutral, only coming at it from different directions.

I leave 'unaligned' for things like statues, trees, some PCs I've seen, and other things without enough intelligence to think for themselves.

 

[pemerton]

Easy. I don't like the rule (and its underlying assumption) because it doesn't fit my view of how the game world should work.

Now I'm just lost. Why, in the game world, would enemies not close with the fighter? And why would the fighter not be skilled enough to wallop them when they do?

I thought your objection was about an allocation of authority in the real world - ie you don't like the player of the fighter to be able to make it true that now, these enemies I can see within this distance of me close, such that I can wallop them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I leave 'unaligned' for things like statues, trees, some PCs I've seen, and other things without enough intelligence to think for themselves.

Instagram influencers?

 

[Voadam]

That said, I will always have a soft-spot for True Neutral (aka, Gygaxian Muscular Neutral) because the idea of people going out and taking out the baddies and goodies to, you know, preserve the balance? That's some BPE (Big Pulp Energy) right there!

It certainly makes druids more esoterically cult like with strange beliefs.

 

[Gammadoodler]

On further consideration, I have to ask: What cinematic example of Come and Get It can be presented? And I don’t mean a single target taunt. I mean an example of multiple targets being brought to the attacker.

Necessary features are (1) The opponents aren’t already inclined to mass rush the attacker, and aren’t being prompted by their leader to attack. (2) The use of the weapon was necessary to bring in targets.

That means, for example, the blood shower rave in the beginning of Blade doesn’t count. Blade didn’t do anything except be there. The vampire crowd was already pumped to attack him.

There is the attack scene in the sewer at the end of Underworld, but again, she does nothing to force the attack.

Trinity kind-of achieves the effect at the beginning of The Matrix, but that is more her taking the police by surprise, and them aggressively continuing their attempt to arrest her.

A part of my problem with CaGI is that I really don’t have this as a recognized move in the movie fights that I’ve seen. Sure, there are lots of big mook rushes. None of them fit CaGI for me.

TomB

Like 80% of professional wrestling promos.

 

[Aldarc]

Indeed.

Now imagine picking that book up a few months in advance of 4e's release. Pretty cool, huh? This edition's gonna be great!

Then, on release, you pick up the core three 4e books (PH, DMG, MM), read them through, and in disappointment wonder what the hell happened between the frying pan and the table.

That was pretty much me in 2008.

This book just covers the lore and setting side of the development. There was also Race & Classes, which I believe was the one more focused on mechanics. But what we get in 4e is pretty freaking clear in regards to the former is abundantly clear in World & Monsters. There is even a point where they flat out say "the Great Wheel is dead" and layout their reasoning.

 

[Nikosandros]

I see your "unaligned" as being more "passive neutral", where muscular neutral would be a more "active neutral". They're both still neutral, only coming at it from different directions.

I leave 'unaligned' for things like statues, trees, some PCs I've seen, and other things without enough intelligence to think for themselves.

In my AD&D (and adjacent) games, characters can be neutral, which means that they are not particularly aligned with any cosmic faction, or True Neutral, which means that they are aligned with Cosmic Balance.

 

[Kannik]

50m on the way to 100m.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/wotc-ddi-4e-and-hasbro-some-history.661470/

Great, thank you for that confirmation and correction to my embarrassing goof! Silly zeores, getting in where they shouldn't be in my brain...