Can a swarm be grabbed?

[eamon]

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.

Some moves you got there...

 

[P1NBACK]

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 you're 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.

Because it's not just physical stamina and energy. It also has to do with timing, flow of combat, techniques your opponents are using, precise openings that occur only once in a while, tricks you can use in a battle maybe once (fool me once...), etc... etc... There's a MILLION reasons you can fictionally justify Encounter and Daily powers.

If you’re a martial character, they are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while.

This is it. This is the explanation for Encounter Powers. You've practiced these advanced maneuvers, but there's only so many times you can pull them off in a fight due to a million different variables that can change every fight. This time I strained a muscle, this time the enemy is keen to my trick after doing it once, this time I can't find the right opening to use it multiple times, etc... etc...

If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit.

Dailies are even more so. You're not just getting fatigued physically, it also takes a mental toll. It takes timing. It takes patience. It takes focus. Someone with multiple dailies can call on those reserves multiple times per day, but when they do so it drains them and pushes them to their limit. I can't push any farther, I can only maintain by using At-Wills - I might be able to pull off an Encounter power if this guy lets down his guard, etc... etc...

Why can a guy use Daily 5 and then use his Daily 9? Because that character can perform "two dailies" now. His reserves have increased - he's more focused, experienced, can push himself mentally, etc...

But, why can't he do Daily 5 twice? ...

I'd say he COULD. But, why would he? Daily 5 is not going to be as good as Daily 9, so it makes more sense to use Daily 5 + Daily 9.

Have you ever been in a real fight? You know how you keep trying to get that damn armbar on someone but you just can't get it until that certain moment when the timing is right and the opening is there? That's what I'm talking about here. You know when that opponent escapes the armbar and then all of a sudden you don't even go for that particular armbar anymore because you know they've figured out how you got it on them? Yeah.

Watch UFC and tell me they don't have particular moves they pull out at specific times. You know how they're fatigued as all through the fight and then all of a sudden they leap at them and do a flying kick to the face and knock their opponent out? WTF?!!?!? He was FATIGUED!?! He looked ing tired. How did he pull that flying knee off? (I'm literally recalling a UFC fight I saw and was stunned by...). Well, he went into his "deepest reserves" and pulled out a badass move that he could probably not do again.

That's the fictional justification for Martial powers. And, it makes WAY more sense to me than a Wizard not being able to cast fireball over and over.

 

[eamon]

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.

In practice, people will learn what flies and copy each other. Perhaps the less-glib won't think to net-grapple a swarm to be able to grab it, but if someone else does it first, they'll be able to do the same.

Also, this is where DM consistency comes it - if the player is trying something that should be possible based on earlier rulings, the DM should (in my view anyhow) help them through it.

And if nobody in the party thinks of being able to grapple with a swarm using a net, well, then you're just playing in a work in which grabbing a swarm isn't possible. And that a perfectly fine, fun world - there's nothing wrong with that, and it's not like you're screwing over the players here since grabbing swarms is hardly a component of expected behavior and balance when confronted with a swarm. You're not unbalancing the game by removing the option.

 

[P1NBACK]

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

This is why you encourage descriptive behavior. Quick to develop fiction...? They do it in non-combat scenarios right? There's no specifics in the game for what to say when you Bluff right? You're telling me when someone uses Bluff you let them say, "I bluff him. I got a 18. Do I succeed?"

NO.

You say, "Sure. What do you say to him? How do you bluff him? Are you lying to him or what?"

I just don't get that. If anything, if it's a new player say, give the guy some options.

DM: So, you're fighting this fire elemental. You got the jump on it. What do you do?
Noob Rogue: Well, I have this "Poison At-Will" on my sheet. What does that do?
DM: Well, you can strike a creature's insides and deliver a poisonous attack.
Noob Rogue: Well, I use it on the fire elemental.
DM: Sure. How do you do that?
Noob Rogue: I don't know... I guess I just swing at it.
DM: Nah, that's not gonna work. The fire elemental is made up of mostly fire, but there are embers floating around in it that you think makeup it's life force. There's a particularly large one in the center. You think if you hit that you might be able to deliver a poisonous attack.
Noob Rogue: Oh cool. Well, I get a +2 for flanking right?
DM: You sure do.
Noob Rogue: Great, I tumble over to position myself behind the elemental (moves his mini 2 squares) and as I'm tumbling I'm drawing out this little vial and rubbing the end of it across the tip of my blade. When I get in position, I strike quickly at the elemental's ember heart. (rolls dice for attack, hits).
DM: Oh yeah, your blade goes right through the flames and pierces the elemental's heart delivering your poison. (notates hp loss and ongoing poison or whatever). In addition, you struck it in a way that chipped away a large bit of the ember. Roll your sneak attack damage because you're flanking.
Noob Rogue: Oh cool. I can do that? Ah. I see! That +2 from flanking is combat advantage. Ok.
DM: Yup.
Noob Rogue: (rolls SA damage)
DM: Sweet. Wizard. You're up.

I also offer up suggestions and encourage all my players to make suggestions to each other and get involved with their descriptions. I don't think it's as daunting to new players as you are suggesting. In fact, in my experience, it's easier for a new player to suggest a fictional method of attack versus a mechanical one.

It's going to require the DM abide by this too. Give descriptions for the players to riff off of.

And, when a description calls for something not covered by powers, don't forget DMG page 42! . I can't grapple the swarm with my hands... What if I do THIS to grapple it? Sweet. Let's reference page 42.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Regretfully, I have had players who approach roleplaying as a mechanical puzzle and do indeed use the 'I bluff, and rolled a 34'... they learned this style of play before arriving at my table and are reticent to change.

Consistant descriptions that support the PCs reliable use of powers is a good thing. But at some tables it won't be happening soon. The option should be there, but if Mike isn't willing or able to describe how his encounter power trips a swarm... either the GM provides to supporting fiction or accepts the bland approach. The GM should not deny the powers effect when an experienced player is reticent to pony up the fictional story.

*Mike is the kind of players who had a diplo-monkey paladin in 3.x, and is completely uninterested in anything beyond the mechanical puzzle game of skill tests.

Is this a rule-set issue? I don't think so. However, my experience with 4e is that combat length plus power cards tends to limit the fiction telling. I almost would rather a free-form power system that uses stunts, player description, and an "elements of magic" building block approach.
But that kind of game is harder to learn.

Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk

 

[P1NBACK]

Regretfully, I have had players who approach roleplaying as a mechanical puzzle and do indeed use the 'I bluff, and rolled a 34'... they learned this style of play before arriving at my table and are reticent to change.

Consistant descriptions that support the PCs reliable use of powers is a good thing. But at some tables it won't be happening soon. The option should be there, but if Mike isn't willing or able to describe how his encounter power trips a swarm... either the GM provides to supporting fiction or accepts the bland approach. The GM should not deny the powers effect when an experienced player is reticent to pony up the fictional story.

*Mike is the kind of players who had a diplo-monkey paladin in 3.x, and is completely uninterested in anything beyond the mechanical puzzle game of skill tests.

Man, I think you're supremely selling your game short. If you want that boardgame experience with the roleplay "tacked on" as flavor (ala the banker roleplay when we play Monopoly), go for it. But, this is why justifying the mechanics in the fiction is so important.

I would never, ever let a player roll a Bluff skill check without explaining how they are bluffing and what they are saying (let alone having them act it out).

Is this a rule-set issue? I don't think so. However, my experience with 4e is that combat length plus power cards tends to limit the fiction telling. I almost would rather a free-form power system that uses stunts, player description, and an "elements of magic" building block approach.
But that kind of game is harder to learn.

That's a serious disconnect with the rules and actual play, in my opinion. The rules do matter and if you're not getting the roleplay from them, there's a problem.

Honestly, if you want to go free-form with player description and elements of magic, you should ditch the power system and roll with page 42 of the DMG. It's exactly what you are looking for. In fact, even if you don't ditch the power system, I would develop a power card specifically for the rules on that page and hand it out to your players (making it a viable and present option). The catch is, they have to describe what they are doing. Maybe that will ween them into some description.

And, the next time "Mike" says he wants to Bluff the vizier, simply ask him, "Awesome. How is your character doing that?" I bet you see results.

 

[Solvarn]

Good points

In order to make anything happen at a table you need buy-in from everyone involved. If your players can't agree that you need to be the ultimate authority on ruling, and you feel you need that authority to deliver the experience you want for your players, then you're at an impasse.

One feature of 3E and to a greater extent 4E is that it requires less adjudication from the DM in order to function. Some people think this is a bug, but it is in fact a feature. This lessened adjudication was incorporated by design to make DMing "easier". That fact alone means that it may not be the best system for all players and groups.

Less adjudication. If you are just playing by the rules as written without bending, your game is suffering for it. Look at recent changes to damage expressions for monsters. Those changes have been needed for a very long time. Anyone that has DM'd awhile and hasn't attempted to address some of the issues inherent with 4E (solos and damage specifically) isn't wrong, but is simply missing out. If as a player you are fighting your DM for trying to make their game better, you suck.

The paradox of this whole viewpoint is that if however you are playing, if everyone is having fun, then the product has accomplished its goal. I just think that there is a great amount of potential lost in this generation of gamers.

 

[Solvarn]

Regretfully, I have had players who approach roleplaying as a mechanical puzzle and do indeed use the 'I bluff, and rolled a 34'... they learned this style of play before arriving at my table and are reticent to change.

Try giving out a +1 or +2 bonus depending on how good the description is to any skill checks made during a skill challenge. You'd be surprised what your power gamers can come up with.

 

[Ryujin]

And, the next time "Mike" says he wants to Bluff the vizier, simply ask him, "Awesome. How is your character doing that?" I bet you see results.

We do precisely that, in play, and give small bonuses or penalties based on how well the player did. Frequently someone will come up with something that simply doesn't fit the skill that the player wants to use. "I persuade him to help us by telling him I'll cut his hand off, if he doesn't!" Clearly an intimidate; not a use of diplomacy.

 

[Gradine]

In practice, people will learn what flies and copy each other. Perhaps the less-glib won't think to net-grapple a swarm to be able to grab it, but if someone else does it first, they'll be able to do the same.

Also, this is where DM consistency comes it - if the player is trying something that should be possible based on earlier rulings, the DM should (in my view anyhow) help them through it.

And if nobody in the party thinks of being able to grapple with a swarm using a net, well, then you're just playing in a work in which grabbing a swarm isn't possible. And that a perfectly fine, fun world - there's nothing wrong with that, and it's not like you're screwing over the players here since grabbing swarms is hardly a component of expected behavior and balance when confronted with a swarm. You're not unbalancing the game by removing the option.

And this works for some parties but certainly not all.

Maybe it's just my exposure to recent pop culture talking, but I for one, as both a DM and a player, don't really need an explanation for every little thing that happens at the table. Since when does something implausible in a fantasy action sequence break immersion?

I can't speak for everyone else, but I expect things not to make any sense every once and a while.

And speaking of breaking immersion, how is bringing play to a screeching halt while everyone goads a player into describing how their power works (despite everyone already knowing it should work by RAW) not metagaming of the highest order? I mean, if the player offers it themselves it's just gravy, and I'm all for encouraging the player to give a little more creative thought to what they're doing from time to time. What I am NOT for is having everyone at the table telling a player how they should play their character, and I am certainly NOT for creating a houserule on the fly to take away something the players by all rights should be able to do just because the first person to try it wasn't having a good creative moment.