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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6230521" data-attributes="member: 42582">I hope you can see that, from my point of view, you haven't really told me how this might be resolved in 3E.If, by "modifiers", you mean bonuses to a d20 roll, then these fate points are not really increasing the dimensions of resolution.The distinctive feature of action points in 4e is that they operate in a different dimension of resolution: namely, the action economy. And encounter and daily powers operate in multiple dimensions: sometimes they involve bonuses to rolls, or rerolls; sometimes they allow multi-targetting or multi-attacks, which is comparable to additional actions; sometimes they increase effectiveness; sometimes, as in the case of the battle captain, they grant additional actions.It has always been the case that D&D spell casters begin every combat encounter with a list of things they can do, namely, their memorised spells.Likewise, fighter and thieves have always had (different) resource lists too, such as in the case of fighters, the number of attacks per round; or in the case of thieves, the conditional set-up for a backstab.AEDU doesn't change this basic paradigm for casters; it does tend to bring the fighters and thieves closer to the caster paradigm. Does your critique apply to casters also? (As is perhaps implied by your reference to Ars Magica.)In 3E, wouldn't that be resolved via Manyshot (or some similar feat)? And in Moldvay Basic, how would it be resolved?I don't think this is a particularly viable way to run a game without some broader framework around it, that relates action economy to effectiveness. Otherwise it's just an invitation to bad maths on the part of GM and/or player.For instance, what should be the penalty for getting off two shots rather than one (given that the potential is there for double effectiveness)? Make it too low, and the player has simply upped the output of their PC. Make it too high, and the player has simply nerfed their PC. (3E two-weapon fighting is riddled with this problem.)Marvel Heroic has a nice way of handling this, via its general rules for spending plot points to allocate additional dice to generate additional effects, plus its rules about effect stacking, plus its Area Attack SFX which allows extra dice to be allocated for free, but adds d6s to the pool - which are not very powerfule effects, and increase the likelihood of rolling 1s.This particular issue - of how you resolve the battle captain in non-4e D&D, or even of how you resolve the archer wanting to shoot two arrows while spending only a single action - seems to me to have little to do with trust. Or with flexibiity. It's about the scope of the game mechanics, and the dimensions that there are to work with.Whether or not I trust my GM, or as a GM whether or not I am willing to be flexible, Moldvay Basic simply lacks the resources to permit two arrows with a single shop as a routine option. I guess an alternative is then to allow it sometimes, but not always: but that then gets into the territory of GM authority over outcomes which is of no interest to me. At that point, why both to roll the dice at all? The GM can just narrate what happens as s/he thinks is best for the story s/he is If you mean "I don't change or adapt the rules" then that's not so. A very simple recent example: when the invoker/wizard in my 4e game implanted the Eye of Vecna into his imp familiar I had to work out how to adjust the Eye's abilities to reflect that unusual situation. (They are written on the (reasonable) default assumption that the Eye's wielder has the Eye in his/her own eyesocket, and not that of a familiar.) Other simple examples include reworking themes and epic destinies to fit various players' conceptions of their PC.If you mean "Nothing can be accomplished in the game unless there is a power on a PC sheet that specifies that as an outcome" then that's not so. To take that line would be to completely ignore p 42, plus the role of keywords in 4e powers which is brought out particularly in the DMG discussion of damaging objects, plus the skill challenge rules; and would be ridiculous in and of itself. A simple example already mentioned upthread was the invoker/wizard's use of a possession attack power to try to read the mind of a guard to extract a password (the attack succeeded; the Hard Arcana check to extract the password failed). More complex examples can be seen in these <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?319168-The-PCs-defeat-Calastryx-(and-get-up-to-some-other-hijinks)" target="_blank">actual</a> <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?319889-Doppelganger-mayhem-(with-a-long-lead-up)" target="_blank">play</a> posts: an Arcana check to suck chaotic energy out of bottled pure elemental fire in order to accelerate a flying carpet in an aerial chase (failed; the carpet went crashing to the ground with an explosion); a fire-resistant paladin who had been set on fire by an allies flaming arrow burst using the fire to deal additional damage to the hobgoblins he was fighting; summoning chaotic energies from a dying dragon to imbue a silvered horn with magic and turn it into a Fire Horn; using the Sceptre of Law to redirect the destination of an unstable portal to old imperial ruins (successful Religion check); not to mention the fact that 15th level PCs have a flying carpet, which is a 20th level item (and by default, treasure in 4e caps at level +4, or 19th level for 15th level characters).If you mean "Wants the mechanics to support the game by giving solid guidelines on mechanical difficulty and mechanical effect that, when followed, will deliver satisfying play", then absolutely. In a well-designed game system I should be able to set DCs and mechanical consequences simply by reference to my charts; and the players engaging those challenges via their PCs should then produce fun play; with no need to fudge or tweak anything as the resolution unfolds. (I take this to be part of what  [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] was referring to in his most recent post upthread.)I've run systems that don't satisfy this constraint (classic D&D, particularly below level 5 or so; Traveller; RuneQuest; Rolemaster, particularly below level 7 or so), but wouldn't anymore.</blockquote>

Verification