A Wrought Iron Fence Made of Tigers

While I see where you are coming from, Kamikaze Midget, it seems to me that quite a few of the rules choices in 4E were designed specifically to get rid of story-mangling effects, like quick and easy long-range teleportation or ressurection (by moving them into rituals).
I think this may be a point that need clarification. For representing an externally generated story, these effects may be problematic. For inspiring a story, these effects are no more of a problem than anything else. Nobody is saying that 4E can't represent stories (at least I'm not) - the question is whether it can inspire them.


Let's take an example. One thing I've done for inspiration is to think about how the magic that exists would have an effect on the world. How people could benefit from it, try to understand it, and defend against it, using the most practical methods possible. For instance:
[sblock=Teleport and Scry]If you look at Teleport and Scry, those are some spells with a large effect on the world - an effect that the rich and powerful may want to defend themselves again. Now often, you see the defense against these basically handwaved or homebrewed. But looking at the spells in question, there's some relatively defenses with interesting results:

Scrying - The scryer can watch and listen, but not feel or read thoughts. So for those in the know, important deals are sometimes made by a tactile form of sign language - basically a secret handshake turned into a code, with the hands inside a box or covered by a cloth. For those powerful enough - a spell like Rary's Telepathic Bond can ensure private communication. And both these methods also work against mundane spies or invisible watchers as well.

Teleportation - A simple fact many people don't recall - Teleportation can't put you somewhere without a clear space. So what secret technique can be used to safeguard a vault from teleportation? Beads. Simple the same hanging strands that make up a beaded curtain, space all throughout the vault so that no space exists large enough for a thief to fit without touching one. Try to teleport in, and you get shunted outside, painfully.[/sblock]The end result? Flavor details, potential plot elements, and information for plots and schemes, all from a couple spells. If teleportation and scrying were by DM fiat, or so limited that they have little effect on the world at large, then there wouldn't have been any inspiration for that. Sure, I could make something up, decide that in my world people use silver coins inset into the walls to protect against arcane sight - but it wouldn't have the same resonance that these have. Flavor inspired by the rules lets you show, not tell - the players may notice these customs, wonder about them, forget about them, and then later, when they have these kind of spells, have a flash of surprise when they realize the underlying pattern. And it will actually be the players realizing it - not just you telling them "you realize that those coins must have been to prevent scrying".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The problem with beads blocking teleportation is, not every teleported area is a vault. Quite often it's not. Quite often it's anything other than a vault. So, unless every room in every high level dungeon has beads hanging from the ceiling, that doesn't work.

I'm very much against the idea that rules need to inspire. This isn't 1978, when you could easily read every fantasy book published in a year. This is 2008, where you couldn't possibly read more than a sliver of just the fantasy novels written in a year, never mind SF, TV, movies and video games. There's so much out there to draw on for inspiration, why do we need the rules for it?

Teleport is probably one of the biggest offenders here. It completely negates a whole swath of storylines - even simply "riding the red line" type stories where you get attacked by a squid while on ship.

Heck, imagine the Odyssey if they had Teleport. That'd be a quick story. LotR? Done in a page. Illiad? Footnote. Grail Quest? Done in a day. Scry, buff, teleport, done.

Yes, you can add to your setting by nerfing spells. I'd rather not.
 

For example, a rogue is no longer someone good at sneaking, stealing, disarming traps, disguising themselves, finding information, climbing, hiding, etc. A rogue is now "do damage, do damage, do damage" -- nothing but another variety of fighter.

How does this differ from 3rd edition?

Rogues in 3rd get sneak attack, trap finding, and uncanny dodge....which are all combat abilities. Even most of their options at high level are still combat related.The big thing for rogues is they have the best skills.

Coming back to 4e, rogues still have the best skills. And with feats you can get even more. And skills actually matter more and last longer through levels then they used to. And they have utility powers which can be used to augment their thief role.


Now I can agree with statements like "the cleric only buffs when he hits a guy". Those kind of powers do bother me, I wish there was an option to forego the attack and just get the secondary benefit. But I do think you can do more with 4e characters then combat.
 

The rules are a tool, a means to an end. If you are using a screwdriver to drive a nail, you'll be frustrated, because you have picked the wrong means to your desired end. You should pick the right tool for the job, not curse the tool you happen to pick up for failing to do the job you want.
Pretty weird for some though when the tool that they have been using (D&D) changes from a hammer to a screwdriver. I've seen lot's of posts on these boards to that effect. Effectively, taking out a lot of the simulation, has had an impact of players where this aspect formed a large part of their "game".

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

Pretty weird for some though when the tool that they have been using (D&D) changes from a hammer to a screwdriver. I've seen lot's of posts on these boards to that effect. Effectively, taking out a lot of the simulation, has had an impact of players where this aspect formed a large part of their "game".

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I sometimes have the impression that we all used D&D either as a hammer or as a screwdriver, and it kinda worked for both, but an actual hammer or screwdriver would be better. Maybe now D&D has turned into a screwdriver, making all those screw-guys incredibly happy, but disappointing all those nail-guys.

In hongs days, they used generic food metaphors, and they liked it.
 

I sometimes have the impression that we all used D&D either as a hammer or as a screwdriver, and it kinda worked for both, but an actual hammer or screwdriver would be better. Maybe now D&D has turned into a screwdriver, making all those screw-guys incredibly happy, but disappointing all those nail-guys.

In hongs days, they used generic food metaphors, and they liked it.
...spot on...I mean yeah...you nailed it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

For example, a rogue is no longer someone good at sneaking, stealing, disarming traps, disguising themselves, finding information, climbing, hiding, etc. A rogue is now "do damage, do damage, do damage" -- nothing but another variety of fighter.
In third edition the rogue had hide, move silently, disable device, open locks, search, and climb. That covers what you've listed.

In fourth edition, the rogue has stealth, thievery, perception, and athletics. That covers what you've listed.

Oh, and he also has a bunch of utility powers that make him do all those things even better, on the off chance that someone else has trained stealth and thiever and so forth.

So, right. This is how edition wars start. When I have an aneurysm after reading the post of some grognard who thinks he's entitled to his own facts.
 

I sometimes have the impression that we all used D&D either as a hammer or as a screwdriver, and it kinda worked for both, but an actual hammer or screwdriver would be better. Maybe now D&D has turned into a screwdriver, making all those screw-guys incredibly happy, but disappointing all those nail-guys.

In hongs days, they used generic food metaphors, and they liked it.

Well said -- I think you're really on to something here.

-The Gneech :cool:
 

Yes, you can role-play with it, but only in the same sense as you can role-play with chess saying "hah! My pawn just took your pawn -- and that really represents him sneaking up through the bushes and shooting him with a crossbow!"
So when my Dragonborn paladin came to the defense of some innocents last session, and put down a goblin thug with his longsword what he was actually doing was capturing a pawn en passant?

Color me confused... it seemed like D&D to me at the time.

That is role-playing, but it does not make chess itself a role-playing game. Precisely the same is true of 4th edition D&D.
Old Bean, I afraid you've left Hyperbole Station behind and are making for Utter Nonsense with all deliberate speed.
 


Remove ads

Top