Can a swarm be grabbed?

[Kobold Boots]

These reinforce the narrative-story rationale behind Daily and Encounter powers to me, because if what you are saying is true, then me, player, choosing to use a particular Daily power doesn't mean that I'm playing my character doing something in the game-world, but ALSO means that as a player, out-of-character, I get to decide that now is the opportunity to use this particular power or that the enemies are now leaving themselves open to its use... which means I am affecting game elements, a "story" or "narrative", outside of my character. That is something that rubs me the wrong way.

Then why are you playing a game where interactive storytelling is the whole point of playing the game?

As for c. I expect as the player to choose whether it is sound to use this or that tactic more than once in an encounter. I don't want the game mechanics to make these kinds of choices for me.

Then advise me of a game that has combat mechanics which let you make the rules up as you go along to suit your fancies while affecting powers that drastically affect outcomes and you'll find your game.

No edition of D&D has had powers that do extra damage that aren't throttled in some way similarly. Even video games that simulate fantasy have a refresh period for attacks and powers.

Methinks you're just arguing to argue.

 

[Odhanan]

Not at all, it's really more of a wrong system type thing. You can try to make 4E something it isn't, or play a different system that is more aligned with what you are wanting.

There are parts of 4E I really like though. The very base concept of powers as units of capabilities universal throughout the game is an interesting idea. The tactical effects themselves are interesting. The way saving throws work, or the different types of defenses, this too is interesting to me. The whole idea of Rituals being performed outside of combat and allowing for some special or particularly potent effects is pretty cool.

What I'm really hoping is that Essentials just takes a few steps back from the things that rub me the wrong way with the game. Just enough for me to actually grab the elements I like with the game without being too bothered with the rest.

 

[Odhanan]

Then why are you playing a game where interactive storytelling is the whole point of playing the game?

Which game are you talking about? 4E, or role playing games in general?

In the first case, I'm not playing 4E right now but hope to be able to connect with it via Essentials. We'll see.

If you are talking about the latter, i.e. role playing games in general, then we have a fundamentally different way to consider what the point of role playing games is. For me, role playing games aren't about storytelling at all. Storytelling, storygames, narratives, stories, all these point out to a completely different type of game than actual role playing games, to me.

To me, role playing games are about immersion in the "now" of the game world. It's not about being in a "story", it's about being in an actual, if fictional, game world. There is no "narrative" unfolding, just like there is no narrative unfolding in my own real life. As DM, I do have game elements, starting situations for a game, locales, NPCs and factions with motives, goals and plans, mysteries, murders going on and what have you, but these are all events going on around the PCs, that they may have triggered or not, that they may investigate or not, but there is no such thing as a "story" or "narrative" unfolding in the game. It's about actual events as they unfold for the characters in the game world.

There's an important nuance here which, to me, makes the notion of story and narratives anathema to the very act of role playing.

See this RPG Site thread for more on this.

Methinks you're just arguing to argue.

I'm sorry I'm giving you this impression. This is really not my intention. I believe all I'm saying, here. I'm not trying to mislead people or argue a point I actually don't believe just to be contrarian to other people's views. Really.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you’re a martial character, they are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while.

Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit.

So you can still move the same way, not be fatigued or have any other side effects take place once you've used an Encounter or Daily Exploit, use as many At-Wills as you want, etc, but somehow, there is a mental and physical barrier that takes effect and prevents you from performing this specific move again? I'm sorry, but the rule vs. the explanation does not compute with me.

So, it's 'unrealistic,' is what you're saying. And that bothersyou. Yet a wizard can throw a 15' diameter ball of fire every six seconds, all day, but can only cast a 35' diameter once a day, even though, after doing so, he can keep tossing the 15' ones with just as much fascility as before, and that doesn't bother you.

It's easy to make the mistake of aplying that kind of double-standard, because people really can and do swing swords IRL, and it's not hard to imagine (or see demonstrations) of what swinging a sword is like. The same can't be said of casting spells.

But the upshot is that, for a martial power, the explanation that a power requires some sort of great effort is not realistic enough. But, it's fine for any other source.

Originally Posted by Kobold Boots
a. Because you only found opportunity to use it once.
b. Because your enemies only left themselves open once in the encounter.
c. Because it wasn't tactically sound to use the power in the encounter more than once.

These reinforce the narrative-story rationale behind Daily and Encounter powers to me, because if what you are saying is true, then me, player, choosing to use a particular Daily power doesn't mean that I'm playing my character doing something in the game-world, but ALSO means that as a player, out-of-character, I get to decide that now is the opportunity to use this particular power or that the enemies are now leaving themselves open to its use... which means I am affecting game elements, a "story" or "narrative", outside of my character. That is something that rubs me the wrong way.

Now, given a more plausibly 'realistic' rationale for a martial encounter or daily, you find it too 'narativist.'


Now, why is it that a Wizard can't cast fireball more than once per day? How about a Cleric, why can he only cast Spiritual Weapon once a day?

 

[fjw70]

There are parts of 4E I really like though. The very base concept of powers as units of capabilities universal throughout the game is an interesting idea. The tactical effects themselves are interesting. The way saving throws work, or the different types of defenses, this too is interesting to me. The whole idea of Rituals being performed outside of combat and allowing for some special or particularly potent effects is pretty cool.

What I'm really hoping is that Essentials just takes a few steps back from the things that rub me the wrong way with the game. Just enough for me to actually grab the elements I like with the game without being too bothered with the rest.

My thoughts on 4e are similar to yours. I like to say that I prefer new school mechanics and old school style. I like 4e but would prefer a toned down version.

Before hearing about Essentials I was working on combining 1e and 4e, but then the more I heard about Essentials the more thought it just might hit the spot I was shooting for (or come pretty dang close).

I eagerly wait for the release of Heroes of the Fallen Lands. That is the key book in Essentials for me. If that book is what I hope then I my be able to get my cake and eat it too with regards to mixing the old with the new.

 

[Nichwee]

Can a swarm be grabbed?

RAW = Hell Yes.
How?
You use a free hand to swirl about through the swarm stopping them running away (the gerbil runs from one hand to the other repeatedly trick) or you make a small vortex by swinging your arm in a circle sucking in insects.
Both these could apply the "grabbed" condition so that all the mechanics work - and "grabbed" is just a name for a set of effects.

Why are some marital powers restricted in use?
The opening, the adrenaline and the muscle groups of some moves are different and can only take so much before they give out. I recently tried to draw a 70lb warbow - it almost screwed up my shoulder (and I didn't draw it fully) but I could still draw a 27lb bow fine - and an Encounter/Daily power can easily be drawing the bow back further for more power or holding/using a weapon in an unusual way that puts different strain on the body than a "normal" (At-Will) attack.
This can translate into Powers with limited use in a completely narrative fashion: "I did a move and I twinged a certain muscle group - if I do that again soon I am going to pick up a 'dibilitating/long term' injury but if I stick to the stuff that 'doesn't strain me as much/uses a different muscle group for the main umph' I should be able to get by fine and after a 'short/extended' rest to stretch out the muscle and apply some ointment to the area I'm sure everything will be back to normal."
Treat '.../...' as options to cover the type of justification needed in the situation this would represent.

 

[P1NBACK]

(I visibly have a hard time stopping *sigh*)


I do acknowledge your point then: yes, there is an explanation, and yes, you may find IH's explanations of token pools (which actually depend on the actual pool being considered, for the record) lame. Sure. You can.

Right on. Issue resolved.

That logic rubs me the wrong way. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Sure. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Right? "To you" is the clause there.

Because the game's logic sucks to me. Fact is, you know as well as I do that this explanation is not why Dailies and Encounter powers work the way they do. They work they way they do for game system reasons, rules balance reasons, and explained after the fact in an half-arsed way with two paragraphs in the rules book.

I mean, you could say the same thing about tokens in Iron Heroes. I don't know. It could be prescriptive or descriptive.

Read above. If I don't have the resources, stamina, tactical savvy to perform a level 5 exploit, I don't understand why I would still have them to perform a level 9 exploit still. That does not make any sense. To me.

Because a level 9 exploit is a distinct ability that you can pull off, just like the level 5 ability. They are mutually exclusive.

Nope. That's where you lose me: you finding the explanation totally logical doesn't de facto make it logical to me, and doesn't make my reasoning wrong. Unless of course you address my actual reasoning, instead of just saying that's my problem and my problem alone.

Like I said, you can choose not to like 4E's explanation. That's your option. However, the complaint you filed against 4E, that there was no "in-game explanation" is false. Applying logic to rules mechanics simulating what you perceive as "reality" or whatever a sure fire way to have an aneurysm. I could break down "tokens" in Iron Heroes the same way. I just think it's strange that you're so willing to accept a "token" explanation and not the other. *shrug*

Anyways, now that we've cleared up the issue of whether 4E has an in-game explanation, I think we can move on to the real issue with powers, which is the disconnect between the fiction and the mechanics when it comes to actually employing them.

 

[P1NBACK]

No offense, but that's not the definition of a role playing game. As long as you are still playing a character in a world that has some rules, you are still role playing. This world just has slightly different rules than the "real world".

Oh god, wherein he tries to define "roleplaying game"... Gimme a break. I can "roleplay" my banker in Monopoly. Does that mean Monopoly is a roleplaying game? It has some rules and I'm playing a character...

No. Absolutely not.

The roleplaying comes in when my fictional actions and choices have a direct impact on the game. This is why it's important for the mechanics to support the fiction.

What it comes down to for me is that we are still playing a game to have fun. If not being able to use your powers against an enemy is no fun, then "realism" takes a back seat to fun. It's not that I don't consider "fiction", it's that it always takes a back seat to game balance and to the fun of the players.

First of all, I never once mentioned realism as the stated goal. Never. Plausibility? Yes. Realism? No.

However, my main concern is the fiction. As I just discussed, without that fiction carrying my character and my choices, we're playing a board game and "roleplaying" is just us masturbating with our voices.

Any time realism becomes the primary motivator in a game you end up with a situation where one player gets favored over another. Often this favoritism leans towards spellcasters over non-spell casters.

Like I said... We're not talking about realism. We're talking about fiction. Pay attention.

But, you're assuming spellcasters are more elite in the fiction. This isn't necessarily true.

Take, for instance, 2 at-will powers: One arcane, One martial. They both do some poison damage. You are attacking a Fire Elemental. They have no veins, they are made of fire. They aren't immune to poison in 4e. The DM asks each character: "How exactly do you poison a Fire Elemental?"

The Wizard replies with "I modify the casting of the spell slightly as I'm casting it so that the substance I shoot at the Elemental acts the same as a poison would for a human. I'm really good at Arcana and would know how to modify my spells on the fly and I'd also know what hurts Elementals."

The Rogue replies with "Umm...I don't know. I just stab it with my poisoned dagger the same way I do all other creatures."

And the DM allows the Wizard to use his powers and reduces the Rogue's powers to quite a few less than he normally has, making it less fun to play.

Really? That sounds fun as hell to me. All of sudden, we're immersed in the fiction because of one simple question. I'm imagining the Wizard modifying his spell and recalling his lore of elementals.

If the Rogue had justified it in the fiction, "As I strike at the elemental, I make sure to place my blade in the ember that rests at it's heart so that my poison strikes at it's weakest location..."

Wow... All of a sudden I'm IMAGINING this fiction take place. And it sounds ing awesome.

This... compared to...

Wizard: I use Poison Missile at-will.
DM: Sweet. It's an elemental though. How do you do that?
Wizard: Well, I just cast it.
DM: Oh, cool. Well, roll to hit. Roll for damage.
DM: Rogue, you're up.
Rogue: Sweet. I use Poison Strike at-will.
DM: Oh, uh, sure. Roll to hit. Roll for damage.

...

Nah... I'd rather hear...

Wizard: I use Poison Missile at-will.
DM: Sweet. It's an elemental though, how do you do that?
Wizard: I modify the casting of the spell slightly as I'm casting it so that the substance I shoot at the Elemental acts the same as a poison would for a human. I'm really good at Arcana and would know how to modify my spells on the fly and I'd also know what hurts Elementals.

Oh yeah!

This either has the side effect of causing players to all decide to play spell casters or to suffer.

Not at all. See my example above.

It resulted in situations where a Rogue could do nearly 0 damage for an entire session due to choice of monsters while the Cleric suddenly became the most powerful member in the group. I had a player quit simply because he was tired of his character doing nothing when we were adventuring in an ancient dungeon where there was nothing alive in it.

Not at all. Rogues can deal damage to undead. There's nothing saying they can't. They just need to justify it in the fiction, same as the Wizard or Cleric.

I use Magic Missile. "Sweet, what happens?" "How does that work?" "How do you do that?"

It's exactly BECAUSE 3.5 "relied on the fiction" that everything it didn't say was so glaring. If one particular monster wasn't immune to grappling but it was immune to a list of 10 other things, you have to assume that there's a reason it isn't immune to grappling or it would have been listed there.

Being immune to something and having characters justify it in fiction are two entirely different things.

For example, in the example above, the Rogue decides to strike at this tiny little ember floating in the center of the fire elemental, it's the magical beast's heart. We've already established the rogue can use the poison on it (because she justified it in the fiction), but if the elemental has Immunity to Poison, well, the DM just JUSTIFIES that in the fiction.

"When your poison blade strikes at the elemental's ember heart, your blade flares and the poison is burned away. You realize, no poison will simply be able to pass through the heat of the elemental to reach its heart."

Poison. Immunity.

This, versus, "Sorry. It's immune. You deal no poison damage."

Well... Why is it immune? How is it immune? Same thing.

I, and the people I played with, adhered to the rules just as closely in 3.5e. It's just that the rules in 3.5e were much more arbitrary(or "realistic" depending on your point of view).

Sigh... Again. We're not talking about realism. I play my games in a very cinematic manner. A rogue striking the ember heart of a flame elemental? Oh yeah.

Nowadays, it's just easier to say "Everyone's powers should work unless the rules say otherwise."

Yeah. I'm of the school that says, "Everyone's powers work if you can justify it in the fiction."

I don't care whether the grappler fighter is grabbing some of the insects and the others refuse to leave their brethren, he's being so threatening that the insects feel compelled to stay nearby him(perhaps he put his arm in the middle of them and they are now crawling all over his body), he swings he sword so hard that it creates a vacuum that sucks the insects in, or any other explanation you can come up with.

If you can justify it in the fiction. Yes. The example given earlier of someone using their shield to hold down a swarm of lizards or whatever is a good one.

To me, the explanation isn't really important.

And, this is sad to me. We're playing the game for the explanation. For the fiction. We're not playing Monopoly or D&D Minis.

I want to get the round of combat over with so we can get to the next one...as quickly as possible so we can get back to the role playing part of the game.

So... Why play combat at all? Just skip it. "You guys win. Good job. Now... back to roleplaying..."

And I want that round of combat not to end with one of the players saying "I guess I don't do anything, since half my powers grab and the other half can only target grabbed creatures"

My advice to that player: "Use your imagination. This is D&D. Not, Monopoly."

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

P1nback... I completely agree that justifying the action with fiction is cool and I wish more people did it. However, some players are not glib of tongue or quick to develop fiction... and I hate the 'mother may I' effect where my PCs actions might be nerfed by the GM because I didn't describe it well enoufh.

Swarms can be grabbed... and someone at the table should justify the action with fiction in order to help the game be more enjoyable..... that someone depends on the group.
I don't want rules designed in a mass market game for just one style of play...{unless its mine!}

Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk

 

[eamon]

Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you’re a martial character, they are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while.

Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit.

So, it's 'unrealistic,' is what you're saying. And that bothersyou. Yet a wizard can throw a 15' diameter ball of fire every six seconds, all day, but can only cast a 35' diameter once a day, even though, after doing so, he can keep tossing the 15' ones with just as much fascility as before, and that doesn't bother you.

It's easy to make the mistake of aplying that kind of double-standard, because people really can and do swing swords IRL, and it's not hard to imagine (or see demonstrations) of what swinging a sword is like. The same can't be said of casting spells.

But the upshot is that, for a martial power, the explanation that a power requires some sort of great effort is not realistic enough. But, it's fine for any other source.

Originally Posted by Kobold Boots
a. Because you only found opportunity to use it once.
b. Because your enemies only left themselves open once in the encounter.
c. Because it wasn't tactically sound to use the power in the encounter more than once.


Now, given a more plausibly 'realistic' rationale for a martial encounter or daily, you find it too 'narativist.'


Now, why is it that a Wizard can't cast fireball more than once per day? How about a Cleric, why can he only cast Spiritual Weapon once a day?

Now, I don't think daily martial powers are problems, but it's not hard to see his point:

If you're using non-existant, arcane/divine/primal whatever powers and skills to conjure up some fireball and throw it somewhere - who knows what kind of resources and effort that requires? Essentially any explanation will do (as long as it's self-consistent), so perhaps each spell has a unique sound - and only it's frequency is expended when you cast that spell so that only that spell is effectively expended. Or mana colors. Or memorized symbols. Or whatever - it hardly matters.

On the other hand, martial powers - representing physical effort the way they do, cannot simply get away with anything. And in the real world, if you're tired, you're tired - and that'll impact the execution of all your tricks. Or perhaps you've overstressed a particular set of muscles; but then you'll feel that whenever you reuse them, not just for that one specific power. And if something were exceptionally tiring, you'd expect that to affect quality of execution rather than the ability to execute at all - at the very least, it might affect at-wills too.

'Course, the game's obviously simplified out "minor" details, so it's not unreasonable to use some simple recharge mechanic rather than an attempt at a simulation. On the other hand, the simple recharge mechanic they chose doesn't really jive with the martial flavor at all (no real, complex physical exploits are so tiring as to be doable only once per day yet have no impact on other exploits). This isn't an issue with other power sources to the same extent because they don't have that same flavor of being supreme physical exploits - instead they're powered by something we can't know anything about since it's not actually real. It's pixie dust.

So if "effort" and muscle strain are the motivating fluff, then the recharge mechanics make little sense (why does one power have no effect on another?).

(And again, this is just a minor inconsistency, you don't have to convince me this is somehow irrelevant - I'm already quite satisfied that it is.)

The change essentials makes is probably a good one from both this fluff perspective and from gameplay perspective (where it's good to break up the excessive symmetry the game now sometimes suffers from).