Can a swarm be grabbed?

[Kerranin]

Grabbing? Throw a blanket over it. Prone? Blown onto their collective backs, scattered, or similar effects. Like Markn said, it's up to you to come up with a suitable description. In our group if someone is trying to do something that doesn't sound possible fromt he general description, then it's up to the player to say how it's done. No description; no effect.

I agree completely, if in doubt, have the PC describe how it is done. If they really can't then disallow it.

 

[Odhanan]

Question: Do you actually DM 4e?

Not at the moment, precisely because of this sort of nonsense (to me) we're talking about here, where words don't mean what they really mean, where the rules are the game, the game the rules, that you reinvent concepts like "mythical heroes" to mean that you can indeed grab swarms, the narrative BS that comes along with it, and the kicker, that if you try to reason using basic, common sense logic, you risk to affect the game system in some way, and that somehow is a no-no that will "destroy the fun" of the players involved (in which case, I wouldn't want to play with such players in the first place).

Because let's face it: just like DracoS would certainly be unhappy at my game table, I would be unhappy playing at his.

Look, I've stated my point rather forcefully, because that's the kind of thing that really rubs me the wrong way with 4E. From the feedback I'm getting, it's obvious that we won't come to any sort of agreement, even if it means agreeing to disagree. I'm fine with that, so I'm just going to bow out of the conversation.

I haven't read the 4E forum for most of the last two years and now that Essentials are around the corner, I actually remember that I do like some aspects of 4E, and would like to use the game in some way, shape or form, like for instance introducing people to RPGs in my area. I just hope that Essentials takes a few step backs from all this narrative-gamist nonsense and allows me to actually connect with it. We'll see.

With that said, I let you discuss the narrative logic there is in allowing Mythical Greek heroes to grab swarms to your heart's content. Namaste.

 

[Solvarn]

The Storyteller

There used to be a show on the air a long time ago called Jim Henson's the Stotyteller. It was definitely one of my earliest fantasy influences. It stands up fairly well too, thanks to the excellent work of John Hurt. It's available on Netflix if you ever have the chance to check it out.

Anyway, there was an episode where a soldier has this magic sack that he can order anything to enter (think bag of holding) and goes to a castle to play poker with a bunch of devils (imps) using a magical deck of cards that he acquired that never allow him to lose.

After the imps cheating to "high heaven and low hell" all night trying to beat him, dawn approaches and he has won all of their gold. They threaten to eat him and he holds out the sack.

"What is this?" the soldier asks, brandishing his bag of holding.
"It's a sack," one of the imps says, preplexed.
"Well if it's a sack, get in it!" the soldier exclaims, as the imps are magically sucked into the bag of holding. He then carries the squirming bag outside, full of the struggling imps, and proceeds to beat the sack on the ground, jump on it, smash it against a tree, etc.

He then frees the imps, who flee in terror, but catches the last one by the leg, and takes his hoof, which he tells him to remember "where he left it." He basically binds the imp to his service.

Anyway, long story short, I guess you could use a bag of holding to grab a swarm.

 

[Solvarn]

I'm sorry, DracoSuave, but your argument indeed makes no sense whatsoever to me as it pertains to the question at hand, i.e. whether a swarm can be "grabbed" or not.

It's not a question of "narrative", but a question of logic, to me. It is a question of whether as a GM you can make judgment calls on your own, or rely on the game system and the DDI updates to answer them all for you. Whether your game is about the Worlds of Your Imagination, or WotC's. And if by talking about a "narrative arc" for 4e you mean that words do not have meaning anymore, that the characters of this game are so far removed from common sense as to only make any in the context of the game rules, and the game rules only, with the make-believe being a consequence of the game system, and not the other way around, then by all means, I reject 4e's "narrative" reality and substitute my own.

It is just as easy to change or alter rules in 4E as it is in any edition of D&D. You just have been provided with a more sound mathematical framework to use and more rules available.

3E and 4E players seem more reluctant to deal with DM interpretation in general, but it's really up to you how things go in your game. Don't hate the system, hate the players.

 

[Kobold Boots]

3E and 4E players seem more reluctant to deal with DM interpretation in general, but it's really up to you how things go in your game. Don't hate the system, hate the players.

In my experience it's really just a generational thing. Younger players to thier late 20s/early 30s come from a different mindset than the older players that would have grown up with 1e/2e (late 30s through 40s.) Probably just the Gen Y mindset in general and not the game player type overall.

My group hasn't touched 2nd ed in something like 11 years and we run through contentions DM judgment calls all the time with little to no issue.

 

[Solvarn]

My group hasn't touched 2nd ed in something like 11 years and we run through contentions DM judgment calls all the time with little to no issue.

Agreed.

 

[Jhaelen]

I haven't read the 4E forum for most of the last two years and now that Essentials are around the corner, I actually remember that I do like some aspects of 4E, and would like to use the game in some way, shape or form, like for instance introducing people to RPGs in my area. I just hope that Essentials takes a few step backs from all this narrative-gamist nonsense and allows me to actually connect with it. We'll see.

Don't get your hopes up. It's still 4e. Actually, from what I've seen so far, I doubt anyone who decided they didn't like 4e when it was released is going to like Essentials. It's still a decidedly gamist system.

See, the thing is, I don't mind DMs making 'common sense' rulings as long as they understand how the system's balanced. There is always the danger of invalidating player choices.

As an example, a DM may decide that all undead creatures are immune to fear effects, charm, dominate and illusions in her campaign, because it 'makes sense' to them.

That's all fine and dandy, unless one of the players decides to play an illusionist wizard or a psion. It may still be fine and dandy, if the DM told the players before starting the campaign about his house-ruling of undead.

But only mentioning it after the fact (or even worse: not mentioning at all, and simply ignoring the pcs attacks) is unacceptable, imho.

 

[Robtheman]

In the case of an insubstantial creature you can grab it. However it will pass right through you into the floor immediately after that. Which is much more interesting from a narrative perspective than saying "no."

 

[Tony Vargas]

3E and 4E players seem more reluctant to deal with DM interpretation in general, but it's really up to you how things go in your game. Don't hate the system, hate the players.

3.x had it's issues, but 4e really doesn't require a lot of DM intervention. It's a fairly clean system. Powers do what they say.

The call for interpretation isn't in figuring out what happens mechanically, it's in providing the fluff or visualization for what happenned.

Not at the moment, precisely because of this sort of nonsense (to me) we're talking about here, where words don't mean what they really mean, where the rules are the game, the game the rules, that you reinvent concepts like "mythical heroes" to mean that you can indeed grab swarms, the narrative BS that comes along with it, and the kicker, that if you try to reason using basic, common sense logic, you risk to affect the game system in some way

I have noted over the years a strong bias against what are now called 'martial' classes in that regard. Heroic warriors of myth and legend frequently performed absolutely impossible feats. Fergus mac Roth punched the peak off a mountain. Everyone of Charlemagne's knights in the Song of Roland was spitting saracens four to a lance and cleaving mounted foes from helm through their horse's spines. But for some reason, we want to 'reality check' anything a fighter might do.

On the other extreme, wizards of myth and legend frequently did very little. Their powers were subtle, mysterious, and not often much use in combat. One of Merlin's greatest feats of spell-casting was to cause the tents of an invading army to collapse - aside from that, he turned into a bird now and then, and created a disguise that fooled a noble's own wife. Circe could transform a man into an animal by serving him a magic potion in a cup of wine. Cool stuff, but it ain't fireballs and lightning bolts and unerring magic missles and Time Stop. But do wizards ever get called on 'verisimilitude?' No, "it's magic" so they can do whatever their powers say, no questions asked.

It's intollerance, is what it is. Virulent anti-martialism.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I agree with everything you say here.

But I want to throw in, that disallowing single target pushs pulls or slides but allowing single target grabs, is indeed nonsense...

if i find an explanation for the latter, i also find an explanation for the former. It is not about versimilitude here, but nconsitence.

But i want to point out, that you wizards and fighter examples are quite good. I also want to add Gandalf to your fighter wizard examples.