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

[Guest 85555]

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.

Actually spell slots represent something very real in the setting. Read the description of how spells function again in the 2E and 3E phbs. You may not be satisfied with these explanations. But there is an explanation beyond simply forgetting what you read. It is an actual process that is meant to be part of the physics of magic. THis is entirely different from a fighter forgetting how to perform a maneuever after using it (and I would point out, no such explanation was even offered for martial powers).

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.".

Again, there is a difference. Magic, whether people like it or not, is something we don't have in reality, and you can come up with all kinds of expanations for how it works to produce internal consistency. When magic is involved it provides an explanation that is helpful to suspending disbelief. In the case of fighter 4E powers, had they been explained as magic, people wouldn't be upset about the believability issue (they would still probably have issues with how 4E structures the game and the effect of magic fighters on the setting, but you certainly wouldn't hear me complaining about believabliity). There is a very good reason people draw a line between mundane and magical things. People can dismiss this distinction all they want, but I think it is an entirely valid one.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

!

Sure, but that only really works if you are looking for a narrative style game. I personally find that jarring to my in-game POV.

 

[Siberys]

If it's at the fighter PC's will to use the power, that's the fighter causing the opportunity to happen. That's what I mean by forcing the opportunity - taking as he desires and at his will. If the opportunities are serendipitous, isn't that more like the luck factor of achieving a critical hit? That's the direction Paizo has taken (though, sure enough, the PC does have some control over making those situations more likely) and I think it's a direction I appreciate more. It screws with my immersion in the character a lot less.

See, here PC will and Player will seem to be getting confused, to my eyes. The fighter never chooses to use the power - that's me. The character sees an opening and takes advantage of it, but it's not the PC saying 'I choose use my daily now,' it's the player.

I can maybe see why that could be an issue if you're really, /really/ concerned with immersion, but, honestly, I have difficulty accepting that myself. You have to maintain a certain level of 'unimmersion' just to separate player knowledge from character knowledge, and a little more to deal with things like stats and dice rolls and hp, and still some more to account for imagining the scene and clarifying with the GM, and so on. IOW, if you can accept dealing with hp and die rolls, abstracted-opportunity effects shouldn't be that hard with which to deal.

And if not having direct control of the abilities as the player (not the pc, mind) is so important, why not have the player roll a d20 before the action? assign number thresholds for 'seeing an opening' at the encounter and daily levels. It'd unfairly gimp martial characters relative to non-martial characters, but it would remove any illusion of pc choice in the matter. I personally think the attack roll itself covers whether the PC actually had that opportunity well enough, though.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Siberys Good post. You, as the player, vacillate between 1st and 3rd person omniscient, while your character remains in 1st person perspective. It is impossible to remove the "omniscient" portion of your own perspective. It can be blunted by degree by averting thine eyes from the elephant in the room (overtly referencing the metagame at the table) or by resource schemes and mechanical resolution tools that are metagame neutral (rather than intensive) but there is a wall separating you and your character's perspective and never the twain shall meet.

Getting 1st person actor (metagame averse) gamers together with 1st person and 3rd person omniscient receptive gamers together is probably the biggest hurdle for the 5e team. The two have pretty deeply divergent agendas.

 

[Obryn]

In the case of fighter 4E powers, had they been explained as magic, people wouldn't be upset about the believability issue (they would still probably have issues with how 4E structures the game and the effect of magic fighters on the setting, but you certainly wouldn't hear me complaining about believabliity). There is a very good reason people draw a line between mundane and magical things. People can dismiss this distinction all they want, but I think it is an entirely valid one.

So is what you're saying, "I would totally play 4e if they just put the Arcane keyword in all the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord powers"?

-O

 

[Guest 85555]

So is what you're saying, "I would totally play 4e if they just put the Arcane keyword in all the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord powers"?

-O

No.i have said before my dislike of the game extends beyond the believability issues.

 

[Obryn]

No.i have said before my dislike of the game extends beyond the believability issues.

I didn't figure.

As for me, the fact that Fighters can do all this stuff without magic is one of the appeals and I wouldn't respect the game so much if it did.

I respect that strong versimilitude helps you get into the game. From my perspective, my priority is that I want warriors and wizards to be on pretty equal footing in the party. One of the best ways to do that - given, as you've said, there's no rules for magic and anything "arcane" has a much lower bar for believability - is to use more narrative abilities ... if, that is, you ever bother to explain them at all.

Personally, though, I don't, except on message boards. I just say, "He can do this because he's an awesome paragon of weapons and athleticism." "Why can he only do this cool thing 1/day?" *shrug* "Because that's how the game works. Doesn't make him less awesome, though."

-O

 

[Nagol]

I didn't figure.

As for me, the fact that Fighters can do all this stuff without magic is one of the appeals and I wouldn't respect the game so much if it did.

I respect that strong versimilitude helps you get into the game. From my perspective, my priority is that I want warriors and wizards to be on pretty equal footing in the party. One of the best ways to do that - given, as you've said, there's no rules for magic and anything "arcane" has a much lower bar for believability - is to use more narrative abilities ... if, that is, you ever bother to explain them at all.

Personally, though, I don't, except on message boards. I just say, "He can do this because he's an awesome paragon of weapons and athleticism." "Why can he only do this cool thing 1/day?" *shrug* "Because that's how the game works. Doesn't make him less awesome, though."

-O

In many ways, I wish martial charcters would have really awesome stuff to do by increasing the design space and making some hard decisions about what power source is good at what thing. This likely would mean arcane and divine power sources couldn't afford to be the massive catch-all grab bags they have been.

Need someone who won't quail at the sight of the terrible wyrm? Martial. Need someone to shoulder through the collapsing building carrying 3 children and a cat? Martial. Need someone able to lay down massive smack on the enemy? Martial. Need someone to raise the countryside in rightous rebellion? Martial.

Need someone to correctly interpret the astral crystals of Astarath? Arcane. Need someone to open the portal to the Netherlands? Arcane. Need someone to lay down light AoE and moderate battlefield control? Arcane.

Need someone to dismiss the unholy beast of Tra'al and root out the undead legacy of Morduk? Divine. Need someone to call for the intercession of the Great Enabler? Divine. Need someone to lay down moderate single target damage? Divine.

 

[Nagol]

@Siberys Good post. You, as the player, vacillate between 1st and 3rd person omniscient, while your character remains in 1st person perspective. It is impossible to remove the "omniscient" portion of your own perspective. It can be blunted by degree by averting thine eyes from the elephant in the room (overtly referencing the metagame at the table) or by resource schemes and mechanical resolution tools that are metagame neutral (rather than intensive) but there is a wall separating you and your character's perspective and never the twain shall meet.

Getting 1st person actor (metagame averse) gamers together with 1st person and 3rd person omniscient receptive gamers together is probably the biggest hurdle for the 5e team. The two have pretty deeply divergent agendas.

I can't know, of course, but I suspect at least a few of the '4e is just a tactical wargame/isn't a RPG' gripes were metagame averse players who didn't put into words what their complaint was.

 

[Manbearcat]

I can't know, of course, but I suspect at least a few of the '4e is just a tactical wargame/isn't a RPG' gripes were metagame averse players who didn't put into words what their complaint was.

I'm sure you're right.