D&D 4E 4e and reality

[LostSoul]

Interesting post as always.

Reading your post makes me think of some of the procedures for play that I've written up - reaction rolls, run a skill challenge, wandering monsters, that sort of thing. In a way this removes the moment of judgement I'm talking about!

I do think these procedures work for my game, and work well. I wonder why that is. A handy tool to rely on, so I don't have to do the heavy lifting myself? Those procedures are supposed to reinforce what the game is about; maybe that's why I enjoy them.

I think I need to re-think my criticisms of 4E in that light! I want the focus of the game to be in a specific place, but some other areas of focus I don't care about. I like "detailed" action resolution - descriptions of actions down to the small details - but if I stopped looking for that would I see other places for these moments of judgement?

Well, I've talked about myself more than enough!

 

[pemerton]

The way you talk about using reaction rolls on your 4e hack thread is interesting. But as well as closing down judgement it also opens it up - for example, if an NPC or monster is hostile, then how does that hostility express itself?

I haven't used random reactions for a long time, because I've tended to place monsters/NPCs in order to provide a pre-conceived antagonism or foil for the PCs. The judgment, or at least some of it, has been frontloaded into the encounter design rather than the encounter resolution.

Thinking more about your Sneak Attack examples, or the way you handle martial encounter powers in your hack, how do you handle the issue of "spamming" - or does it not come up? I think this question has some similarity to the issue of "always using your best skill" in a skill challenge. I tend to find that the way a skill challenge unfolds puts some natural brakes on that, because the players don't always have the ingenuity to find a way to bring the fiction back to the sort of terrain where their best skills would engage. The fact that I tend to have all (or most) of the PCs participating in most skill challenges reinforces this.

Do you find that the same sorts of constraints - players simply can't always bend the fiction in the direction that they might like - act as a natural brake on combat powers triggered by the fiction? (EDIT: And further with respect to this - I find the upper limit on skill challenge checks before it's finished one way or the other helps me keep track of where the fiction is and is going - do the many more rolls in a typical D&D combat make it harder to keep track?)

 

[LostSoul]

The way you talk about using reaction rolls on your 4e hack thread is interesting. But as well as closing down judgement it also opens it up - for example, if an NPC or monster is hostile, then how does that hostility express itself?

Yeah, it shuts down some input - but opens up more. The stuff I care about! I also like to be surprised as a DM, unsure how things will turn out.

Thinking more about your Sneak Attack examples, or the way you handle martial encounter powers in your hack, how do you handle the issue of "spamming" - or does it not come up? I think this question has some similarity to the issue of "always using your best skill" in a skill challenge. I tend to find that the way a skill challenge unfolds puts some natural brakes on that, because the players don't always have the ingenuity to find a way to bring the fiction back to the sort of terrain where their best skills would engage. The fact that I tend to have all (or most) of the PCs participating in most skill challenges reinforces this.

Do you find that the same sorts of constraints - players simply can't always bend the fiction in the direction that they might like - act as a natural brake on combat powers triggered by the fiction? (EDIT: And further with respect to this - I find the upper limit on skill challenge checks before it's finished one way or the other helps me keep track of where the fiction is and is going - do the many more rolls in a typical D&D combat make it harder to keep track?)

I find the skill challenge # of successes is a good pacing mechanic. I am using them only for social challenges now, but when I look at the number of successes required I have a good idea of where to lead the NPC's action.

One of the players - he plays Barkmourn, Baern, Xhiver, and runs Silverleaf (his henchman). Silverleaf is the only character who's really used his "Triggered Powers". The trigger relies on the NPC being distracted. There are a lot of times when this player in particular asks if the NPC is distracted or not, and most of the time the NPC isn't. It works because socially we understand where each other is coming from - he's trying to use his most effective attack, and I'm not trying to shut him down but just "maintain consistency of the game world."

He also tries to use "The Order In All Things" - a skill that Divine characters can pick up - quite a bit, and sometimes I have to turn him down. This is the same issue, though it's worse because the actual description of the skill and what the PC can do with it isn't very clear.

One of the things I want the players to do, though, is to try and "spam" their best skills and powers. That means that they'll be engaging the game world, and the more player skill they have the better results they'll get.

 

[P1NBACK]

That yes you can do it by RAW, but that the DM has the right to decide you can't if he felt like it. So in other words, pretty much as I've asserted these powers work the way I interpreted them to work.

Aegeri, this is what I've been saying since post one. You've been arguing against DM interpretation for the long haul, and yet here, when CS says, "Yeah, you have to follow the rules for grab" and then you argue with them into giving you the answer YOU want, you're fine with: "The DM can rule otherwise."

We've all been saying this since the beginning. I'm glad you agree.

This is a clear example of why "RAW" is a foolish approach to the game - because really, it's more about RAI (like you've decided to game the system).

It's just a fundamental approach to the game. Some people approach it like a boardgame/CCG and go with the rules heavy, game the system approach. And, others prefer to use the rules as guidelines for the common sense approach.

Play the game how you want. I'll play the game how I want. We can all be happy.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think that the problem exists in both cases (if the rules don't say you can't grab a swarm, then you can; likewise, if the rules provide an exhaustive list of every possible difference based on the situation). Both focus on the rules instead of the "fiction". Now, it's not that the "fiction" has to be realistic or a perfect simulation of something - that's not what I think the problem is.

I think that's still the problem. You don't see a discussion here about whether or not Fireball should be able to damage a swarm because close to 100% of the people on this board don't see a problem with that. It also agrees with the rules. No one is suggesting changing the rules or allowing DM Fiat for Fireballs to allow them to fail to damage swarms. No one is suggesting that if your description of a Fireball isn't good enough then it shouldn't affect a swarm. No one is suggesting that anyone who allows a swarm to be affected by a fireball is too focused on the rules instead of the fiction.

However, change the word "Fireball" to "Grab" and suddenly all of those arguments have happened. And that's only because people feel that one fits the fiction and one doesn't. But the question is which fiction? I prefer to let the fiction flow out of the rules.

It's that, if you're concerned about what the rules say above everything else, you don't have as many opportunities to inject that "moment of judgement" into the game. The players don't contribute as much creativity to the game.

I'm not saying that the rules should be ignored, either. I think the rules should be followed to the letter (and ditched or changed if they don't work). What I think good rules do is that they give you lots of moments of judgement where players can inject that creativity into the game.

The thing is, the more "moments of judgment" you have, the more random, imbalanced and sometimes stupid the game gets. It's possible I just don't have as much faith in humanity, but nearly every time I allow players(or even DMs) to interject "moments of judgment", the more often the game degrades into arguments and weirdness.

As an example: "Well, the rules don't say whether a Fireball spell catches items on fire within its area of effect. But it would make sense within the fiction, so I'm going to say that everything in the area of effect is on fire. It is magical fire from the Plane of Fire, after all, not just any fire. Also, the rules don't say how fast fire spreads, but it's really hot and this place is made of wood, which burns really well. I'm going to say that your fireball weakened the building enough that it also collapses and falls on you. The rules don't say how much damage a two story building falling on you does, but I think in the fiction it doesn't make much sense for anyone to survive a 2 story building falling on them, so it kills you all."

Obviously, it's a bit of an extreme example. But it's pretty close to something a DM did to us once in a 2e game. I mean, it made "perfect sense" according to the "fiction" of his world(since that fiction was entirely in his own head), and according to "fiction' there just was absolutely no way for us to survive by doing something as "stupid" as using a Fireball spell in a wooden room(I got the impression he was annoyed that the fireball spell also took out all his enemies, so he got revenge....but he claims those weren't his motives).

Now, to me, if you removed all of those "moments of judgment" and replaced them with reasonable rules that were tested for balance and fun, I would have had a much better time.

I think that, in the third case, we'll see more personalized content from the people in the game.

But it comes with the disadvantage that each and every time he uses the power it's up to the judgment of the DM whether he can use it. What counts as a reasonable description of using the power? Only the DM in question can decide. The usefulness of the power then varies so greatly from table to table that there is no way to predict how good it'll be.

With rules like that, you'll play a Rogue in one game and you'll feel completely useless since Swarms, Oozes, Undead, Elementals, anything larger than medium size, any creature that you haven't seen before(how do you know where it's heart is, if you've never seen one before?), any creature with odd anatomy, Constructs, and probably a huge list of other things are immune to your Sneak Attacks. And besides, the DM says that monsters in combat are always on guard. They can effectively defend themselves from anything. The only time you can use the power is out of combat.

Meanwhile, someone elsewhere is starting a thread because they can't figure out how to balance the power of a Rogue with the rest of the group since their Sneak Attack is such a good power. After all, it works on 99% of all the creatures in the game(every monster has vitals of some sort), so they always get Sneak Attack. After all, when an enemy is paying attention to the Fighter who just hit them last round, they can't effectively protect their back and aren't watching for any ranged attacks. If they did, then they'd lower their guard against the fighter. So every single hit is a sneak attack in combat, which gives Rogues a significant damage boost over every other class in the game.

The problem is, "personalized content" tends to be only good as the person who comes up with it. And people vary in opinions SO much that the possibility of one DM ruling the same way as another is nearly non-existent.

 

[LostSoul]

However, change the word "Fireball" to "Grab" and suddenly all of those arguments have happened. And that's only because people feel that one fits the fiction and one doesn't. But the question is which fiction? I prefer to let the fiction flow out of the rules.

Yeah. Some issues are bigger than others.

The problem is, "personalized content" tends to be only good as the person who comes up with it. And people vary in opinions SO much that the possibility of one DM ruling the same way as another is nearly non-existent.

I think this sums everything up well. Yes, I agree. I think it's a strength; I think that's what one wants in a game. It's why you choose to play with these people.

 

[P1NBACK]

You don't see a discussion here about whether or not Fireball should be able to damage a swarm because close to 100% of the people on this board don't see a problem with that.

However, change the word "Fireball" to "Grab" and suddenly all of those arguments have happened.

The fireball spell is fundamentally different from Grab, both mechanically and fictionally.

If you want to compare fireball to swinging a sword, let's do it. To Grab? Nah.

 

[Aegeri]

when CS says, "Yeah, you have to follow the rules for grab"

Neither answer says that. Both answers state that by RAW, you do not and then the DM can decide otherwise. My question was "What does the RAW actually say". The RAW actually says exactly what I thought it did. That powers like grappling strike do not follow the rules for grab - a separate attack that has nothing to do with it.

The first answer was not clear, so I clarified and asked a specific question. When I asked a firmly specific question, the answer was what I expected it to be. The second answer was far more clear because I left no wiggle room for personal interpretation. It was either "Yes it did" or "No it doesn't". When that was removed I got a clear answer as to what the actual RAW was. Now RAI is an entirely different situation.

By RAW, you can grab a swarm with a power that isn't the standard grab action. Meaning a lot of controller, brawler and similar powers function. Given some classes, like the brawler fighter rely heavily on grabbing to work it makes perfect sense they ignore the restrictions on an attack, they aren't using and instead on what their powers actually say they do. Personally, that is what backs up my RAI interpretation as well. Because I don't believe 4E is made in such a way that entire builds are broken by poor design, I firmly believe using their powers a grappling fighter can grab anything he feels like. As the power doesn't have any restriction, that is backed up by RAW and RAI to me easily.

As I said, you're welcome to change how powers work based entirely on your personal preferences. Unless I see a good reason swarms shouldn't be grabbed or a brawler fighters basic features fail to work, then I don't think there is any mechanical or game benefit to ruling they can't do those things.

 

[DracoSuave]

Neither answer says that. Both answers state that by RAW, you do not and then the DM can decide otherwise. My question was "What does the RAW actually say". The RAW actually says exactly what I thought it did. That powers like grappling strike do not follow the rules for grab - a separate attack that has nothing to do with it.

There are problems with this interpretation. (also ignoring the fact a different CS rep put out a different argument, and your taking, specifically, 'Your DM makes the rules' disclaimers as an actual statement of rules interpretation, other than just a formality they append to every rules question ever.)

1) Any interpretation that says that grabbing a target has nothing to do with the rules for grabbing the target is automatically self-contradictory. If they do not invoke the rules to grab a target, then no way exists to adjudicate a power that grabs a target. It might be different if there was a grab action seperate from a grabbed condition... but that's not correct and not how it exists in the rules. There is only one entry on grab in the core.

2) Specific vs General does not allow one to overcome restrictions placed in general rules due to omission.

As a perfect example of this: "The general rule is that you don't add proficiency bonuses for weapons you lack proficiency in; no power exists that mentions that you must not do this, therefore all weapon powers allow you to add the prof bonus regardless of proficiency." That logic does not make sense, the game does not work based on 'This power doesn't say I can't, so even tho the rule says I can't, I therefore can.'

A power does not need to repeat the restrictions placed in a general rule in order for that general rule to apply. In order to make the general rule not work in a specific case, it must contradict the general rule. Omission is simply not enough. Omission is not contradiction.

3) In the specific case of powers that invoke the grab rules, their targeting of 'One Creature' is not a contradiction of the general rule on targeting with powers. However the specific case of grabbing is, and 'one creature' does not contradict other restrictions on that action. It is possible to do both.

The reason that specific powers don't allow you to grab two-step larger creatures is simply because at no point do they contradict the rules for grabbing, nor do they invoke some other grabbing rules which some claim to exist by inference but don't actually exist in print within the confines of my PHB or the errata.

If it mentions grabbing, grab, or grabbed, it must evoke the only rules for it that exist: Those are in the PHB. There's no 'The grab action doesn't use the same rules as grabbing' malarky. There's no 'Powers that grab do not actually use the grab action rules.' There's no 'Grabbed is a condition.'

All that stuff is made-up. Invented. Non-existant fictions. The truth is that powers that grab use the grab action rules for grabbing except for when and where those powers contradict those rules (the attack roll made, damage dealt). You still use the other rules for grab when they aren't contradicted: Using skill checks to escape the grapple, the fact it is a sustain minor, and the targetting restrictions.

If you have a power that says 'You grab the target, even if it is two or more steps larger than you' then you have a -real- contradiction and the grab will work. Otherwise, you have no contradiction, and the grab portion of that power will not.

 

[Aegeri]

There are problems with this interpretation. (also ignoring the fact a different CS rep put out a different argument

This was done to prove a point about CS.

Any interpretation that says that grabbing a target has nothing to do with the rules for grabbing the target is automatically self-contradictory.

Nope. Grab is a power. A power that grabs does not inherently use grab as a power. I'm not exactly sure why it's so confusing that a power called "grab" that is a generic power has nothing to do with how other powers that use grab as an effect work. See Bigby's Icy Grasp: The sustain relies on the condition "grabbed", yet the hit line states you grab the target. It's pretty obvious the power means "Grabbed" as in the condition, not "grab" as in another power.

This is like saying a melee at-will is automatically a basic attack.

If they do not invoke the rules to grab a target, then no way exists to adjudicate a power that grabs a target.

That is why grabbed is a condition and powers that say you grab a target, do assume that condition. Again, Bigby's Icy Grasp 100% backs my interpretation. Grab is a power. Powers that grab are different powers. Grab as a power does not tell you how other powers work.

It might be different if there was a grab action seperate from a grabbed condition

There is. Perhaps you should check the rules compendium again, particularly where it says "Grabbed: Rules Condition". This pretty much demolishes every one of your arguments in this case. Also I will point out again the "Grab" you are clinging to is a power. It is not a condition, it's a power that allows you to grab a target with a certain effect line and target line. This does NOT make it a condition. The condition is grabbed and many powers assume that you have a target grabbed on a sustain line where they do: NOT that you are using the power called grab. This is an essential distinction, especially when Heroes of the Fallen Lands makes it 100% clear that grab is a generic power - like a melee basic attack, bull rush or charge (the latter two also being formatted into powers for clarity).

Edit: Your logic would be sound if the power said "Make a grab attack" but they don't, it says "You grab the target", that's imposing the grabbed condition (of which I am still amazed you are disputing the existence of something linked and quoted to you several times now).