D&D 5E (2014) "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[JamesonCourage]

But, JC, you didn't say you would "back out" before. Before, you said:

Am I misreading things? You'd simply back out of a game which featured something that another player wanted but that bothered you? Fair enough. That's fine. It didn't sound like that before. Before it sounded a lot more like you would force other players to conform to your tastes.

I was speaking of "wants" by players. Players don't "want" other people at the table to play something in a way that disrupts the game for them. I had not spoken of any action I'd taken yet. And I think that was the point you thought I was declaring the actions I'd take (make someone else at the table not play in a way I didn't like). Does that clear it up? As always, play what you like

 

[Nagol]

I don't particularly have a believability problem with AEDU; it's a way to provide occasional openings for martial exploits - it makes sense to me on that basis. Could you use "fatigue" or something instead? Sure, but I think it would add complexity for (to me) little gain. For me, you lose far more removing those opportunities altogether than you do by abstracting the timing to player choice.

Well, the difference is there because 3.x "x2" damage is a probability distribtuion with variability that goes well above the maximum "non-critical" hit level, but am I seeing designer intention where there was none? Quite possibly. That still leaves 4e criticals fitting the "perfect shot" niche quite effectively for my own purposes, though, thanks very much.

Oh, and 4e differentiates weapons pretty effectively without the crit multipliers, so although I can see the utility of that in 3.x, it's not really needed in 4e.

That still leaves out arguably the most common case, though; where the possible opportunity becomes clear, but the fighter needs to make some sort of deliberate gambit to open up a weakness as a result. If I interpret from an opponent's body language and sensory focus what his/her immediate goal is, that doesn't give me an opening - but it does give me a tool with which to plan a deception that may well lead to an opening...

Situation, serendipity and skill are all required, but it's a bit like the "fire triangle". Folk say you need three things for a fire - fuel, oxygen and a source of ignition. But fuel is found all over the place and oxygen is literally almost everywhere, so if you have a source of ignition (a skilled fighter, in this case) you'll almost assuredly have a fire. Likewise, put a skilled fighter into a situation and they will almost certainly find an opening. They probably won't be able to tell you, in advance, what the opening will be - but they'll find one.

And under the AEDU system, up to exactly 1 a day. The martial player and the arcane player are playing the game on different levels. The arcane character knows he gets 1 use of each daily ability so he better make it count; the player making the choice is in sync with the character. The martial character doesn't know when fortune will smile on him, but it happens with metronomic frequency. The martial player is out of synch with the character.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Welcome to the believability problem many of us have with AEDU, particularly the D part for martial exploits. If the PC can force the opportunity once, why can't he force it again? We need a more believable model than the PC can only do so once a day. Fatigue would be a more useful model than the player's narrative control.

And this is less believable than fighters that have exactly the same choice of actions every time and never try pacing themselves or keeping energy in reserve for those do or die moments because ____? It is also less believeable than the same opportunities being available to the fighter all the time because ____?

Is it possible to improve the 4e structure for believability? Yes. Yes it is. I can think of a few ways to do it (including my 13th Age approach-and-opportunity hack and using the Crusader's recharge mechanism from the Tome of Battle). But the way 4e fighters think, act, and behave under the AEDU structure, complete with the semi-arbitrary opportunities offered that you train to exploit is a lot more like the way real fighters do than the way 3.X or 2e "Everything available is available all the time (other than when it's daily) and we almost never leave our square" fighters do.

I thought, and I could easily be wrong about this, that the Wizard c ould fill his "dailies" from his spellbook and thus could have more than 1 Fireball / day in 4e.

BillD's right here.

Frankly, I don't mind some narrative elements in which I, as a player, may decide that I want my PC to pull off a better attack at this moment. But I like them better when I can do so from an in character perspective with a trick maneuver the PC knows (reasonably well modeled with the idea of encounter based powers). And if, by some pool mechanics, I'm out of mojo, I can accept that. But I really do chafe at having somewhere between 1 and 4 special daily maneuvers, each of which I could call on in those instances, but none of which I could use more than once.

As I implied above, a fighter daily is about digging deep into your reserves and really bringing your A game for those do or die moments. Is it just that they need to be different each time that's the problem?

 

[Balesir]

And under the AEDU system, up to exactly 1 a day. The martial player and the arcane player are playing the game on different levels. The arcane character knows he gets 1 use of each daily ability so he better make it count; the player making the choice is in sync with the character. The martial character doesn't know when fortune will smile on him, but it happens with metronomic frequency. The martial player is out of synch with the character.

Yeah, yeah - I know and understand all the issues with AEDU from an "it doesn't really work like this from the character's POV" angle. I can see why some folk have problems with believability with it - but I find I can just let those particular "disbelievability points" fade into the background more easily than I ever could with "fighters basically never get these sorts of opportunity - they are essentially just mindless thugs with no skill but strong arms to bash things repeatedly in exactly the same way".

In short, I get why you have issues, I just don't share those issues. The issues that I do have are better addressed by 4e than by other versions of D&D. Does that mean they couldn't be handled better? No - but I know for a fact that they can be handled worse.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yeah, yeah - I know and understand all the issues with AEDU from an "it doesn't really work like this from the character's POV" angle. I can see why some folk have problems with believability with it - but I find I can just let those particular "disbelievability points" fade into the background more easily than I ever could with "fighters basically never get these sorts of opportunity - they are essentially just mindless thugs with no skill but strong arms to bash things repeatedly in exactly the same way".

In short, I get why you have issues, I just don't share those issues. The issues that I do have are better addressed by 4e than by other versions of D&D. Does that mean they couldn't be handled better? No - but I know for a fact that they can be handled worse.

That is totally reasonable to me. Everyone gets their believability tripped up by different details.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why would the Fighter be forcing the opportunity? It's more likely to be the opponents mistake that makes it possible. Which is also a good explanation for why higher level fighters get more opportunites - they're experienced enough to recognise them when they occur and to take advantage of them.

And to decide when and how those mistakes happen. In essence, every 4e martial power is CaGI. You're controlling your opponent's mind to make them do something foolish. At least, that's the case if this explanation is true.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Oh please! You are asking for the messenger not to be shot. When you have come in here doing nothing more than repeat talking points that almost everyone on one side of the argument finds to be almost entirely without merit and has read literally probably a hundred times before. As such your "This is what other people might think" comes off as something like either "I'm just saying" or the sort of letter which starts "As a lifelong member of the Democratic/Republican/Tory/Labour/Monster Raving Loony Party I must say that..." followed by a list of the opposition's talking points.

Calm down. Really. If you keep up this tone, we're done talking for now.

I am "just saying" how other people feel, because you (and others) have said "I don't see why this is a problem, when you never have to play with the power." I'm saying "here's why some people have a problem still." Nothing more than that.

A claim to neutrality in any contentious matter needs to be demonstrated. And right now, you haven't. You've merely repeated partisan talking points and then claimed to be just the messenger when you have been responded to as if you actually hold the points you claim you are trying to explain. Whether or not you actually hold the arguments you present, own them. You are supporting those arguments - and so far as I can tell this isn't an active devil's advocate situation. The purpose of your writing is to support them.

I suggest you pay closer attention to my posting history, then. I have absolutely no problem "owning" my personal views. Right now, though, I tried to answer a question, for clarity's sake. Things were starting to get heated in the thread, and as someone who enjoys civility, I tried to answer a question to bring the heat down. But me being "partisan" and not "owning" my personal views? That is literally amusing to me.

If you are genuinely going in as someone who is trying to explain a point of view to people who don't get it in the middle of a heated debate and are a sincere neutral then your technique is terrible. To be taken seriously as a neutral while trying to make an argument that is indellibly associated with partisans in a partisan debate you start by accepting literally every other point made by that side you can or otherwise encouraging them to identify with you, and doing it explicitely and openly. If you don't do that, any claims you're just a messenger come off like a mixture of "I'm just saying" and "As a lifelong member of the ____ party..."

Or to summarise if your arguments are nothing but partisan arguments from one side then you'll be treated as a partisan of that side.

And here I was, basing all of my self worths and stuffs on how some dude on the internet views me...

In other news, I'm getting along fine with manbearcat, now. All it took was civil conversation. And that works for me.

And with the specific arguments you are repeating, your "As always play what you like " only adds fuel to the fire. Because the arguments are telling people to not play what they like. So the counterpoint between a post that can be summed up as "Playing what you like is badwrongfun" and the tagline "As always play what you like " appears patronising even if that wasn't the intent.

This just means that people are missing what I'm posting. And my ability to communicate only goes so far.

Which non-magic fear effects in 3.X cause forced movement? Magic can justify anything - this is where the "Fighters can't get nice things" meme comes from.

You mean for PCs? Because I don't know. Also, I know where "Fighters can't have nice things" comes from. I'm not sure why you brought that up.

So have I (for the record 4e works extremely well with no spellcasters). I just don't see the need to write reams on saying "An optional class feature that a lot of people like in a game I don't like is bad and wrong and a reason no one should play the game".

I agree! But then again, I think that Come And Get It is probably only a component of that argument. And, still, I think the conclusion of "no one should play the game" is extreme and unhelpful. It's all those other people who talk about it as an immersion issue that they'd like to overcome so that they feel better playing the game that I'd like to listen to.

There's two major differences between the CAGI and the Scry And Fry examples. Both involve optional abilities - but by default Scry and Fry takes two spells available as in character choices as well as out of game - CAGI must have been chosen out of game. As long as scry and teleport are both known magic, a wizard needs to have a good reason in character not to try and get both by level 10. The second is CAGI doesn't make a whole lot of planned adventure redundant and have massive impact on a world's logistics, unlike Teleport. The difference between a world with CAGI and a lightly cinematic one without is almost unnoticeable.

This is all true (to a degree -you can have a Sorcerer, say, that doesn't get his spell choices in-game). But the impact on the world is much, much, much bigger with Scry and Fry than with Come And Get It, I agree. But, my point stands either way; people obviously object to both, and this becomes an issue at the table. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I think one of the many distinctions between the two camps is where we feel those preternatural abilities should slot into the system.

<snip>

I think this is a preference for different genres of D&D, and how they approach magic.

<snip>

The other school favors magic that is intrinsic or transformational. The character is or becomes the source of magic. It's closer to a superhero line of thought (where the character is defined by his unusual ability) than to S&S tropes. I think Epic Destinies, for 4e in particular, emphasize the focus on intrinsic magic.

All I would add to this is that, for me, it is hard to divorce D&D from this (intrinsic superheroic magic) approach because of the significance of hit points. A PC whose hp permit him/her to survive the firebreath of a strafing dragon I can't but see as intrinsically superheroic.

In fact there is something to be said for letting the GM apply what makes most sense to a given situation rather than be a slave to an elaborate system of rules that attempts to account for every eventuality.

There is a third option, of course - have a simple system of rules that accounts for every eventuality by framing resolution in narrative rather than ingame causal terms.

4e (p 42), HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling and Marvel Heroic RP are all instances of such games.

And to decide when and how those mistakes happen. In essence, every 4e martial power is CaGI. You're controlling your opponent's mind to make them do something foolish.

No. The player is making a stipulation (in director stance) - the PC is only exploiting the stipulated opportunity.

Whether or not this is a burden on immersion depends on preferences, play experience etc - contrary to what some suggested upthread, there is no necessary connection beteween this sort of director stance and threats to immersion.

If it's at the fighter PC's will to use the power, that's the fighter causing the opportunity to happen.

<snip>

Frankly, I don't mind some narrative elements in which I, as a player, may decide that I want my PC to pull off a better attack at this moment. But I like them better when I can do so from an in character perspective with a trick maneuver the PC knows

I think the default logic of 4e is that it is the player, not the PC, who "declare" the opportunity (that is what 1x/enc or 1x/day is about - it's a metagame limit); but it is the PC, not the player, who exploits it (hence the idea of CaGI as the seasoned warrior imposing his/her will).

The martial player and the arcane player are playing the game on different levels. The arcane character knows he gets 1 use of each daily ability so he better make it count; the player making the choice is in sync with the character. The martial character doesn't know when fortune will smile on him, but it happens with metronomic frequency. The martial player is out of synch with the character.

I don't think it has to be quite as you say. I see it as closer to - the wizard sagely paces him-/herself, parcelling out his/her known limited abilities; while the warrior steps up to the challenge, fighting the more fiercely and ruthlessly the tougher the situation, until eventually his/her luck runs out.

Other features of class design - like the preponderance of dailies among wizard and invoker utilities - help reinforce this, at least in my experience.

I thought, and I could easily be wrong about this, that the Wizard could fill his "dailies" from his spellbook and thus could have more than 1 Fireball / day in 4e.

As a general rule 4e doesn't permit doubling up on the same ability, even for a spellbook character.

The design logic is to prevent spamming. Psions are different in this respect, and spamming problems reared their head almost immediately following the release of PHB3!

 

[Sunseeker]

i don't think it's the same issue. Spell slots represent something actual in the setting. Your character literally memorized spells and loses them when they're cast. Now some people do have an issue with that concept, and I think that us fair, but it doesn't present the same issue as the fighter who can do a move once a day. There is just no in game explanation that connects directly to the once a day limit like you have wizards.

Sure there is, and its the exact same argument as wizards, the maneuver is very complicated and after using it the fighter forgets how to do it, and then has to re-read his playbook to learn it again. The idea that magic strips the knowledge from your brain, but not the knowledge that you have the knowledge written down in your handy dandy spellbook is IMO, dumb. A wizard may learn his spells initally though studying magic times, and copy them to his own for refreshment, but spell "slots" don't represent anything at all beyond an artifical metagame limit to the wizards power.

There is NO DIFFERENCE, the difference is being created to justify the fact that your brain can go "oh,.its magic, rules don't apply.". And "oh, its mundane, it should mirror real life.".

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

I don't think it has to be quite as you say. I see it as closer to - the wizard sagely paces him-/herself, parcelling out his/her known limited abilities; while the warrior steps up to the challenge, fighting the more fiercely and ruthlessly the tougher the situation, until eventually his/her luck runs out.

Other features of class design - like the preponderance of dailies among wizard and invoker utilities - help reinforce this, at least in my experience.

<snip>

And that works so long as the players understand the narrative pacing expectations and mould their power use to them. If the martial character uses his daily in the first encounter, he's no longer fighting 'more fiercely' at the next harder encounter nor can he step up his game in any meaningful way. Or he thinks he is, but the player knows better.