D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Lyxen]

That seems to be a strictly definitional problem. It sounds (to me at least) that your 'martial power' concept excludes the possibility of the sort of instant hit point recovery that we usually call 'healing'. I take it you're focused on the fiction not the mechanics as written (per your responses about shield).

Indeed, mechanically, 4e is more than fine, it's just that, in their quest for balance, they have I think diluted to much the spirit of what should be Martial Power for me (again, although not perfect, the 5e Battle Master is much closer to what I think) by forcing into it aspects which do no look martial at all, not only to me, but to the genre in general.

Given that your martial power concept excludes healing I think the argument cannot be advanced. You'd either have to add healing to your concept, or others would have to exclude it from theirs. Perhaps the focus should be on the question - why isn't healing in your martial power concept? Given that so far as the game mechanics are concerned, it seems to be.

See above, first it does not make Martial Power unique, it makes it too much of a clone of (for example) divine, second, it conflicts with its own self-declaration of being "not magic" when it produces effects which can only be magical.

Take Rocky. To me he seems like a pretty martial character. He several times rallies using... martial power? Or if not, why not?

Rallying oneself does not necessarily mean healing / recovering hit points. Once more, keeping on fighting for longer does not mean that you will recover better, whether in the short or the long term. It just tells you that you can keep on fighting longer. In that sense, the temporary hit points of 5e are a much better solution, narratively speaking, which has the added advantage of being specific to the martial power in their description, and the power is indeed called "rally".

Rally
On your turn, you can use a bonus action and expend one superiority die to bolster the resolve of one of your companions. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you. That creature gains temporary hit points equal to the superiority die roll + your Charisma modifier.

Close to perfect, IMHO, because it does not depend at all on the source of hit points of the target. If you take a meatbag, his hit points are probably mostly physical, if you take a lean fighter it's probably skill and resolve, if you take a slim rogue, it's probably mostly luck, and if you take an elegant paladin, it's probably divine favor. Healing hit points through magic does not cause any problem for all these cases, because it's, well, magic. Through self-recovery does not cause any problem either, the warrior renews his focus, the meatbag physically heals, the rogue "renews his store of luck" (see Mat Cauthon and the times he says that he probably used all his luck for a day), and the paladin prays. But stiffening one resolve should not replace all that, and indeed, it does not in fiction of the genre. It might allow the types above to fight longer (temp hit points of a different "source"), but there is no reason for it to replace lost blood/faith/luck through something that is not magic.

Once more, I'm not saying that it cannot be done, 4e is technically really good, it's just that, for me, it is not as suited to the narrative, for sure about the games that I run and play, but also, as demonstrated with now many examples, in the movies/books/shows of the genre.

 

[Lyxen]

Is it fair to say that you see position on the grid as "locked in" in a way that is different from the attack roll and result in the Shield example?

Yes. I'm sorry, but there is a vast difference, both technically and narratively, between simply resolving one attack from beginning to end with a clear narrative at the end ("the attack would have hit but for the shield spell cast at the last instant), and a disjointed narrative that comes back on a previous description and says... what ? that the orcs never moved that way ? That it was an illusion ?

There's also who it affects. Shield is personal and is just a reinforcement of one's defense. But I can guarantee that players will scream if an NPC uses a power that retcons their position on the battlefield. It's a collaborative storytelling...

 

[pemerton]

Yes. I'm sorry, but there is a vast difference, both technically and narratively, between simply resolving one attack from beginning to end with a clear narrative at the end ("the attack would have hit but for the shield spell cast at the last instant), and a disjointed narrative that comes back on a previous description and says... what ? that the orcs never moved that way ? That it was an illusion ?

There's no difference except the one that you're conjuring up via your conflicting descriptions.

I mean, have you considered the vast gulf between simply resolving movement from the beginning to the end of its trajectory ("the Goblins would have ended up here but for turning back at the last minute to see who was pursuing them") and a disjointed narrative that comes back on a previous description ("The Orc hits you for 8 hp damage") and says . . . what? That the Orcs never hit you? That it was an illusion?

There's also who it affects. Shield is personal and is just a reinforcement of one's defense. But I can guarantee that players will scream if an NPC uses a power that retcons their position on the battlefield.

Which players will scream? I know a number who won't, and that's all I need to run a game!

second, it conflicts with its own self-declaration of being "not magic" when it produces effects which can only be magical.

<snip>

Rallying oneself does not necessarily mean healing / recovering hit points. Once more, keeping on fighting for longer does not mean that you will recover better, whether in the short or the long term. It just tells you that you can keep on fighting longer.

I don't even know what that final sentence means. In 4e, all characters recover all their hp and healing surges in an extended rest which is - by default - an 8 hour rest.

But as far as rallying oneself does not necessarily mean recovering hit points, no it doesn't. It might also mean getting a bonus, or a bonus to a, saving throw. But it can mean recovering hit points. The rules tell us that. And given that rallying is not something which can only be magical, it follows that Inspiring Word does not produce an effect which can only be magical.

QED.

 

[reelo]

OK, but does that mean we want our RPGing to be randomly and inherently deadly to our characters?

I mean, life - for many, much of the time - is inherently adventureless. Even dull, and sometimes horrible on top of that. But most RPGs don't try and emulate that!

The "adventurelessness" and dullness of real-life can be attributed to us trying to minimize chances of a premature death. Increase excitement, adventure, danger, and you also increase chance of dying a violent, premature death.
Remove death from adventure and adventure becomes dull too.

 

[Lyxen]

1) Gandalf is a "demigod wizard" and is a poor example

Well, the despair that comes from Morgul is clearly magical in power, and when Gandalf lifts it (for example when rescuing Faramir), it's also clearly magical in nature.

2) Henry V doesn't do magical things, so he can't be a good example either

And Henry the V does nothing that compares to the above. That he incites people to fight harder, or even longer, why not, but it has nothing to do with recovery.

his narrow remaining space (somewhere between Kenneth Branagh and Ian McKellen?) would seem difficult to attain. I suggested facetiously that a D&D character might fill it.

It's actually extremely easy to do, with the added benefit of clearly characterizing the powers, making them more unique and grandiose rather than mashing everything together in an unrecognizable mess for reasons of balance.

• Divine Power heals bodies and souls
• Martial Power (when wielded by a Warlord (e.g. Mat/Great Captains in WoT) not Conan- or Blademaster- Style in WoT) incites people to fight harder/longer

This is easy to understand and implement and perfectly matches the examples of fiction.

More broadly, literature abounds with examples of "rousing words" of one kind or another and I really don't understand this fixation on whether it is "magical" or not from a mechanical perspective.

Once more because, ultimately, rousing words do not raise people from the dead and do not allow the dying to fight again. How hard is this to understand ?

 

[Lyxen]

There's no difference except the one that you're conjuring up via your conflicting descriptions.

Well, at least, instead of sitting purely in theory space, I apply the principles and show the difference.

I mean, have you considered the vast gulf between simply resolving movement from the beginning to the end of its trajectory ("the Goblins would have ended up here but for turning back at the last minute to see who was pursuing them") and a disjointed narrative that comes back on a previous description ("The Orc hits you for 8 hp damage") and says . . . what? That the Orcs never hit you? That it was an illusion?

No, because the orcs did not hit for 8 hp. The damage is only rolled after the attack is confirmed as being a hit. If it's not complete, the description cannot be made.

Which players will scream? I know a number who won't, and that's all I need to run a game!

Well, good for you if you believe this, but I am pretty sure that if I say to one of your players "actually, you only thought you were over here, but actually you were over there where the tarrasque eats you", there will be complaints about player agency. All the more, I might add, in a technical game like 4e where people take their positioning very seriously.

Also, it does not happen in fiction.

I don't even know what that final sentence means. In 4e, all characters recover all their hp and healing surges in an extended rest which is - by default - an 8 hour rest.

And if they don't get that rest, why would they have actually recovered any long lasting stamina/luck/divine/favor from someone who just inspired them to win an encounter a few hours ago ? Usually, that lifting of spirit, once again in literature, is really short lived.

But as far as rallying oneself does not necessarily mean recovering hit points, no it doesn't. It might also mean getting a bonus, or a bonus to a, saving throw. But it can mean recovering hit points. The rules tell us that.

And this is the only thing that has been demonstrated here. You do not argue from a fiction and narrative perspective, just from the fact that the Holy book of the rules tells you something. But reality and examples in fiction tell you differently.

And given that rallying is not something which can only be magical, it follows that Inspiring Word does not produce an effect which can only be magical.
QED.

Nothing has been demonstrated here apart from the fact that you are not thinking in terms of fiction, but only in terms of (4e) rules.

 

[pemerton]

Remove death from adventure and adventure becomes dull too.

Huh? I play a lot of Prince Valiant. As the rules say, character death is not normally an important part of Prince Valiant. Our Prince Valiant games are not dull.

 

[clearstream]

More broadly, literature abounds with examples of "rousing words" of one kind or another and I really don't understand this fixation on whether it is "magical" or not from a mechanical perspective.

Mechanically, it can be helpful to have the tag - such-and-such an effect is 'magical' - so that things that interact with 'magical' can interact interestingly with it. Anti-magic fields, for example. That can then drive or add nuance to the emergent narrative.

 

[pemerton]

Mechanically, it can be helpful to have the tag - such-and-such an effect is 'magical' - so that things that interact with 'magical' can interact interestingly with it. Anti-magic fields, for example. That can then drive or add nuance to the emergent narrative.

In 4e there is no magical/non-magical distinction in this mechanical sense. This is part of what pushes the fiction of 4e D&D in a more romantic/mythic direction (I mean, no one in The Iliad thinks that the way to kill Achilles is to get him into an anti-magic shield).

 

[pemerton]

Once more because, ultimately, rousing words do not raise people from the dead and do not allow the dying to fight again. How hard is this to understand ?

Raise Dead is a ritual in 4e; various Epic Tier abilities also permit characters to come back from the dead.

A character in 4e who has the dying condition is not necessarily dying in the fiction, any more than a character who has been hit by an attack in 5e D&D has actually been hit by an attack. In the latter, maybe they cast a Shield spell and so haven't been hit at all; at worst they were nearly hit. In the former, maybe hit points are restored and so they weren't dying at all; at worst they had swooned, like Frodo when the Orc chieftain stabbed him with a spear.