4e "getting back to D&D's roots" how?

[darjr]

If you already accept HP loss as something much more abstract than real physical wounds and hurt, then the effects of powers are more of the same. Consider it just like causing HP loss but realized in a different, maybe more interesting, way.

 

[The Little Raven]

The powers in 4e that cause you to shift an enemy just by waving your weapon at them don't really jive with my imagining of HP.

But you used "unarmed kick" as sufficient to move them in your example. If my sword threatening their skin doesn't move them, then why would my foot doing the same thing move them? Is my foot somehow more dangerous than a 3-foot length of cold, sharp steel?

 

[mmadsen]

In some ways 4E is a step back to school principles and in others its ventured into non-D&D-like territory.

That's far too nuanced, ExploderWizard. We're at (edition) war here. Pick a side!

New school "tactics" are exercises in game logic. "Hey Bob don't move on your turn. I'm gonna smack that guy with a power that will give you +2 to hit him."

To me thats more board game mastery than tactics.

Absolutely.

 

[The Little Raven]

Some powers can have tactical applications but a some are pure gamist mastery.

Any what, exactly, is the difference? How is knowing when to use a power "gamist mastery" instead of "tactical application?" This strikes me as a completely meaningless distinction.

I think of powers as weapons rather than tactics.

And as I said, powers are not tactics. How you use those powers are the tactics.

Just like in previous editions, a spell is not a tactic. How you use that spell is a tactic.

 

[justanobody]

If you already accept HP loss as something much more abstract than real physical wounds and hurt, then the effects of powers are more of the same. Consider it just like causing HP loss but realized in a different, maybe more interesting, way.

I don't. HP are wounds and physical damage. There is not mental therapist in D&D for help heal the other crap. That is all part of the character traits to be roleplayed and not something that a blow from a weapon can take away.

If a weapon can affect it, it is physical, not abstract.

 

[Just Another User]

Consider it not a physical shove, but pressuring the target in such a way as they are forced to give ground? That seems consistent with your interpretation of HP - its not the bite of the blade thats made them move, but the *threat* of that bite.

The problem with your rationalization is that those Moving powers works even on asleep, paralyzed and generally immobilized creatures. That is my main problem with powers, by themselves could even works but for every one of them there is some interaction that make me goes WTF! (blinding skeletons, tripping gelatinous cubes, grabbing swarms, and so on.)

 

[mmadsen]

Any what, exactly, is the difference? How is knowing when to use a power "gamist mastery" instead of "tactical application?" This strikes me as a completely meaningless distinction.

The rules of the game are meant to model combat. Granted, it's fantasy combat, but I think this analogy should hold:

If I'm refereeing a WWII tank combat game, General Rommel should be able to beat most opponents without knowing the game rules -- assuming I'm willing to translate his thoughts into game moves, of course. He has no mastery of the game rules, but he has complete and utter mastery of actual Panzer tactics.

 

[Halivar]

If I'm refereeing a WWII tank combat game, General Rommel should be able to beat most opponents without knowing the game rules -- assuming I'm willing to translate his thoughts into game moves, of course. He has no mastery of the game rules, but he has complete and utter mastery of actual Panzer tactics.

At some point, there must be a tip of the fact that it is a game (in Forge lingo, there must be a "gamist" element).

As a former historical miniatures wargamer, I once threw myself headlong into verisimilitude for the sake of immersion. One of the scenarios we would run over and over was the 1806 Battle of Auerstädt, a battle of supreme importance to the period, and therefore of supreme importance to us historical gamers. The problem? The French side was larger, and led by the greatest military minds of the era. The Prussian side was led by the worst (General von Blücher being no exception). By the simulationist approach, the Prussians cannot win. Not ever. Lord knows, we tried it several times. The end result is that, while we realistically simulated the battle, no one had fun, and we never played the scenario again.

At the time, it would have been unconsciounable for me to consider bending the rules or the army stats for the sake of balance or "fun." Historical gamers call those games that do "beer n' pretzels" games with an air of disdain (while secretly, earnestly wishing they were playing them instead of trudging through the excruciating verisimilitude of WRG 7th). Today, I have no such qualms. I've had enough verisimilitude. I wanna play a fantasy game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Any what, exactly, is the difference? How is knowing when to use a power "gamist mastery" instead of "tactical application?" This strikes me as a completely meaningless distinction.



And as I said, powers are not tactics. How you use those powers are the tactics.

Just like in previous editions, a spell is not a tactic. How you use that spell is a tactic.

Game board mastery happens when the rules support certain tactical decisions because of an advantage granted only because of the game rules and not rational thought.

For example: My character is fighting a tough battle against a fighter and his little rogue buddy. We are fighting in a cave dotted by boiling mud pits. The fighter has several powers that can knock me prone which allow no saving throw. This allows him to constantly lay me out so his little buddy gets combat advantage until I stand up. As a tactical "master" I run and put my back to a boiling pit of mud ( not the smartest move to take with someone who can knock you back mind you). Now when he tries to bowl me over I get a chance to save " because that would put me in danger". Now I get a chance to stay on my feet and fight due to a move born of sheer idiocy.

I am a smooth tactician? Nope. I know rules and loopholes, thats it.

 

[Gimby]

For example: My character is fighting a tough battle against a fighter and his little rogue buddy. We are fighting in a cave dotted by boiling mud pits. The fighter has several powers that can knock me prone which allow no saving throw. This allows him to constantly lay me out so his little buddy gets combat advantage until I stand up. As a tactical "master" I run and put my back to a boiling pit of mud ( not the smartest move to take with someone who can knock you back mind you). Now when he tries to bowl me over I get a chance to save " because that would put me in danger". Now I get a chance to stay on my feet and fight due to a move born of sheer idiocy.

I am a smooth tactician? Nope. I know rules and loopholes, thats it.

Do you have a better example? The one you quoted doesn't work.

If the power knocks you prone you don't move from your square unless it also does a push, pull or slide, as such you don't get a save due to being in a precarious position because it's not actually pushing you into the pit.

If the power instead was push you would indeed get a save against falling into the boiling mud, but if you failed that save you'd end up in the mud and if you made it you'd end up prone anyway (the save isn't a complete negate, success puts you prone, its unhelpfully not in a very clear place over the page from the rest of the "falling" rules). Standing with your back to boiling mud is as stupid as you'd expect in 4e.