NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9221274" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Basically, yes.  Magic in D&D is allowed to violate concepts like physics, causality, and the laws of thermodynamics because that's what magic do.If you're not explicitly supernatural in any way, doing things like "always hitting", "dealing damage on a miss", or "leaping 30' into the air" have no explanation, and there are people who need that explanation to be explicitly stated by the game- supposition or hypothesis has no place.For these people, D&D starts with the same rules that our reality are bound by, and exceptions must be noted.  D&D humans are the same as humans on Earth, unless otherwise stated.There is a fantasy of martial characters being normal people who somehow deal with extraordinary situations by dearth of pluck, talent, and skill, but nothing that would make them anything other than human.It's like the Batman paradox.  No human is as intelligent, skilled, handsome, physically fit, and rich as Bruce Wayne.  You can have people who have some of these factors, but not all.  This allows you to maintain the belief (some would say fantasy) that he's a man among Gods, when, in reality, he has often performed feats beyond human ability.So to give a "martial" an ability that defies our understanding of reality is right out, unless an explanation for why and how they can do it is explicit.  And no amount of examples you can find as to why martials aren't normal people will do- if it's not in the rulebooks, it shouldn't be so.If this sounds familiar, it's basically what this entire thread has boiled down to.  4e's characters are not beholden to our reality, nor are they intended to be, or even attempt to be.  Previously, you could mostly maintain the belief that D&D characters are meant to be beholden to our reality, and any oddness could be chalked up to "necessary abstraction in order for the game to work".It flies in the face of their preferred paradigm for play- certainly, other editions support multiple interpretations of what is going on.  D&D could be low fantasy, high fantasy, heroic or superheroic or gritty- it all depended on your interpretation (and some house rules).4e flat-out said "D&D is this, and nothing else" as it's premise, and all of it's mechanics follow from that base assumption.To put it another way, some people want to play Cyberpunk.  You can't tell them that Shadowrun is "just like Cyberpunk, but with Elves, Dragons, and magic"- it simply isn't so.D&D had gone from a game that more or less (usually less, but you could squint a little and pretend) multiple viewpoints.  A game could take place on "Ye Olde Fantasy Earth", a cosmopolitan world on the brink of the Renaissance, a blasted post-apocalyptic word populated by demigods, travel into the distant edge of reality, or even into DEEP SPACE!!!!But you could buy in or out of whatever gonzo craziness you wanted.  You didn't need to play with Psionics or rayguns or a magical industrial revolution if you didn't want to, and you could pretend that other stuff didn't exist for your games.4e established a baseline and everything else had to be brought in line with it.  Now there are many legitimate complaints about how WotC handled this era, for trying to shoehorn existing settings into this paradigm, which led to the bastardization of the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun, as examples, rather than simply sticking to the setting based around this edition, Nentir Vale/Points of Light, their...interesting...marketing campaign, and so on.But in the end it didn't matter what worked or didn't- for some people, 4e wasn't "their" D&D and couldn't be.  Their preferred way of playing the game wasn't supported, and they had been cast aside and effectively told they were irrelevant out of date.Nobody is going to be happy with that.  It split the fanbase apart, and when you have angry people, they will do whatever they can to tear apart the thing that they hate.And this continues to this day- if you add anything to the core D&D that doesn't fall in line with the sensibilities of the players, they reject it.  "That'd be fine as an optional rule", you might get.To me, the tragedy was that 4e, as a game, didn't deserve to be lambasted.  Even now, you can go on Youtube and find talking heads who say "and everyone knows that 4e was the worst game ever" despite the fact they never even played it or experienced it.That it wasn't the D&D that everyone wanted it to be was a problem, but I blame WotC's handling of the situation more.  They could have said "this is what we think the future of D&D is" and left it at that.  But within 2 years, they went from "we made this new thing and your old thing basically sucks" to "please come back, we made things more like old D&D!  And look, we brought all of your favorite settings back, but worse!"Now we have 5e, which at every turn, tries not to make definitive statements about anything, and attempts to please the widest possible audience, sometimes to it's detriment.  But hey, at least it's popular, right?</blockquote>

Verification