Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

unlike in 4e, this decision is left up to the individual DM.

<snip>

are you arguing the refined math happened because of indie design?

<snip>

But the idea and proto-mechanic for it were already in D&D, this idea of challenges consistent with level has been around since before 4e. It wasn't something indie design brought to D&D.

<snip>

Again the math of the tools has been refined but the tools themselves have been there since before 4e.

<snip>

You do realize the original action points which, while different from those in 4e, were still FitM mechanics started in 3.x right, with the Eberron campaign setting? Optional of course

<snip>

In fact there were quite a few FiTM mechanics that were left as optional because doing so gave the game a wider appeal as opposed to forcing them and the campaign feel they created on people, but they were there.

<snip>

So we're moving goalposts... so that unless earlier editions had the exact same non-combat task resolution as 4e... well then it had to be indie design. How about refinement and evolution in a certain direction say from ability checks->non-weapon proficiencies->skill checks->extended skill checks->skill challenges. In other words you can change the wording to make it as specific as you like but the fact remains that D&D has almost always had a mechanical way of resolving non-combat actions it's just been refined and built upon as time passed.

<snip>

I don't see how the Nentir Vale is any more conflict-laden than the default setting of 3.x (which was Greyhawk). have you read over either of the Greyhawk Gazetteers that came out?

Are you arguing that 4e is not influenced by indie design? If so, then I disagree - Rob Heinsoo expressly referred to the influence of indie design in a pre-release interview, and he would know. Not to mention it is obvious in any event.

Are you imputing to me the view that there is no connection between 4e and earlier D&D design? When did I ever say that? And what makes you think that indie designers are not influenced by D&D? Luke Crane, for instance, lists AD&D 2nd ed as an influence on the 1st ed of BW, and lists 4e as an influence on the Adventure Burner.

But the question you actually asked me is why I think 4e is better for indie play. I answered. The fact that you think proto-versions of some of the relevant features are present in earlier editions is neither here nor there. A proto-hammer is not as good a tool as a hammer. A proto-encounter building system is not as good as a working and workable system.

As for Greyhawk - I know it very well, having GMed a Greyhawk campaign for around 10 years and having a shelf full of Greyhawk material. If you think that it has any resemblance to the conflict-laden backstory of 4e you've read a very different version of Greyhawk from mine! And if you look at the classic fan descriptions of Greyhawk - such as "The Grey in Greyhawk?" - they are all about the absence of mythic, overwrought conflict for which the political and geographic details are just backdrop.

And for clarity - in talking about the 4e backstory I'm not talking about the Nentir Vale, which is confined to a chapter of the DMG and is a bog-standard fantasy RPG setting. I'm talking about the mythic history that is found in the PHB race and power descriptions, in the DMG's account of the world, planes, and gods, and in the MM monster descriptions.

Finally, it puzzles me why you so vehemently feel the need to tell me that I'm wrong about 4e and indie play. You don't like 4e. And you don't like indie play. So why do you care whether someone else whom you apparently don't like thinks that one is well-suited to the other?

 

[Wicht]

The PHB for 4e establishes a mythic history in which dwarves are the freed former slaves of giants, tieflings and dragonborns are ancient rivals with fallen empires (and tielfings with a diabolic pact heritage), and humans live in the ruins of their former empire Nerath. The DMG sets out a cosmology and mythic history that sits behind this backstory, whch the players also have hints of in the god descriptions in the PHB, the flavour text of powers, etc. And the MM characterises monsters by their relationship to this cosmological conflict.

It's quite different from AD&D or 3E.

It sounds to me like you are merely talking about the fact that 4e had specific campaign flavor text built into the rulebooks and 3e (and others) allowed GMs to choose their individual campaigns, without pushing much flavor text in the actual rulebooks. However, I have to guess that the campaign flavor-text in the PHB did not fit with every 4e world released, unless they massively changed Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Dark Sun even more than I thought they did. So for each campaign, you still had to mostly ignore what was written there if you wanted to run something different from the assumed core setting.

Which means that you are just talking about fluff text in the books, not an actual inherent mechanic in the game. I think you are stretching a little bit to see this as something novel about 4e.

 

[pemerton]

It sounds to me like you are merely talking about the fact that 4e had specific campaign flavor text built into the rulebooks

<snip>

Which means that you are just talking about fluff text in the books, not an actual inherent mechanic in the game.

I am not talking simply about the fact that there is a default setting. I'm talking about the fact that it is tightly integrated into the elements from which PCs are constructed, and the MM creatures descriptions, and the default framing that the GM is provided with in the DMG.

Given that the integration of setting, character, and backstory in yielding the conflicts that are the focus of play is pretty integral to "indie" style, this is not a trivial contribution to 4e's support for indie-style play.

The absene of metaplot is another features that distinguishes default 4e from Forgotten Realms and (perhaps - I don't know it well enough) Eberron.

I think you are stretching a little bit to see this as something novel about 4e.

It's not uniqute to 4e. HeroWars (now genericised as HeroQuest) is set in Glorantha. The Dying Earth is (naturally enough) set on the Dying Earth. It's distinctive for an edition of D&D, however, to (1) have a default mythic history at all, and (2) to have one that is designed to support the generation of thematic conflict as the focus of play, and to integrate that mythic history into the PC build elements to make sure that those conflicts will emerge.

As I've already said, it's not total - you can play halfling worshippers of Avandra who do nothing but fight ankhegs, kruthiks and bulettes. But it's there, and it's very easy to leverage. And the comparison is this: look at an AD&D PC, generated from the PHB. What makes him/her tick? What conflict is s/he primed for. Unless it's a paladin, a druid or a thief (and even then perhaps not), you can't tell. Whereas a 4e PC is much more likely to have an answer to this question built into the character.

I have to guess that the campaign flavor-text in the PHB did not fit with every 4e world released

I've already mentioned both Dark Sun and Neverwinter upthread. Both make significant changes to default 4e expctations. Neverwinter is deliberately set up to integrate PCs tightly into the conflicts of the setting, especially via themes. Dark Sun I don't entirely get, but I think it is less well-suited to indie-style play and better suited to some form of either exploration play or story-telling.

Eberron I don't know enought about either in respect of 4e, or in general, to comment on.

EDIT to add:

These features of 4e's default setting and story elements are not accidental. They are deliberate. Worlds & Monsters - one of the better books released by WotC in my view - explains them in some detail. This is the stuff that many 4e critics deride when they talk about the whole world being turned into an adventuring site, and the corresponding rewriting of things like the elemental planes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

These features of 4e's default setting and story elements are not accidental. They are deliberate.

I find this statement fascinating in comparison to your comment many pages above that you apparently think that a lot of very fundamental 3e text about how to run a game was essentially accidental.

 

[Jacob Marley]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - If I were to rewrite the race, deity, prestige class (where applicable), and monster descriptions for AD&D, BD&D, or 3.x D&D, in a manner similar to what was done in Worlds & Monsters and 4e D&D, would that be sufficient to equal 4e in its ability to generate an "indie" play experience?

 

[pemerton]

pemerton - If I were to rewrite the race, deity, prestige class (where applicable), and monster descriptions for AD&D, BD&D, or 3.x D&D, in a manner similar to what was done in Worlds & Monsters and 4e D&D, would that be sufficient to equal 4e in its ability to generate an "indie" play experience?

It might help. But there were 4 (I think) other features of 4e I mentined, which aren't exhaustive. Pfobably the biggest single issue with classic D&D is it's emphasis on time and exploration, which is the antithesis of scene-framing.

3E has less of this, but has big issues around PC and monster building, some of which are the raison d'etre of this thread!

 

[pemerton]

I find this statement fascinating in comparison to your comment many pages above that you apparently think that a lot of very fundamental 3e text about how to run a game was essentially accidental.

My recollection is that I described one of them as serving a legacy function. I don't think I described them as acciental. Indeed, the inclusion of text performing a legacy function was probably quite deliberate!

 

[Manbearcat]

There are many system components of 4e that support indie/story now play but here are 6 central ones off the top of my head. Hopefully the thread can move on and turn into something productive (perhaps an analysis of playstyle, agenda, technique, system components) rather than the edition war its working toward (which I take some responsibility for as I should have used another system, even when 4e was requested, as examplary of Indie-style conflict resolution):

- Scene-based resource schemes and GM-side tools (supporting the locus of play as closed, conflict-charged action scenes and regrouping/asset-building transition scenes...rather than serial, world exploration)

- Conflict resolution framework and related techniques/tools (eg fail forward, success with complications, subjective DCs, the imposition of a codified win/loss condition mechanically).

- Broad descriptor skills (broad competency and narrative malleability).

- Core, open-descriptor PC build elements integrated into action resolution that are fungible/narratively malleable; Healing Surges and PC wealth. They can be traded for any number of things PC-side for mechanical assets and the GM can use them mechanically to impose complications or make offers.

- Integration of a focused thematic build element per tier of play (Theme, Paragon Path, Epic Destiny) coupled with classes being fairly robustly loaded themselves.

- A power system based off of keywords that is both thematically potent and narratively malleable (no these are not at tension; see 13th Age Backgrounds).

I've posted a significant number of words in the past on my position of some of the editorial incoherencies (my surmise has been that there may have been multiple factions that may have been at odds without a strong, central editor's voice) and some of the "drifting" commentary in the 4e DMG1. I've also spoken to the absolutely great aspects of the tome (as I am a fan of it). I've also spoken in particular glowing terms of the DMG2 (came out 11 months after release) and my position that if you take PHB1, all of DMG2 and much of DMG1, the clarity of positioning of the default creative agenda of 4e as a Story Now/Step On Up product is inescapable. Further Dragon, Dungeon and other books (NCS) only clarify/crystallize and move that paradigm further. I don't care to spend yet more needless time as a 4venger (when the thread isn't about that at all) nor do I care to waste more words accounting for the above position (as I've done so many times in the past). As such, if you're looking for me to elaborate on all of these things (yet again), it isn't going to happen here. You can look up my posts on the subject if you're interested.

In summation, 4e, when played to its default and its sweet spot, plays very similar to a MHRP or Dungeon World with an order of magnitude more tactical overhead (no these two concepts don't have to be at tension).

Finally, I do agree that a proportion of the intiial run at Skill Challenges (examples and guidance on abstract, non-combat conflict resolution) in the DMG1 was poorly elucidated, inconsistent, or at least truncated in their guidance and canvassing of technique. You won't get any argument from me there. I am a "bank account" type of person (moral and otherwise). I take the net body of work (the deposits and withdraws) and consider whether something, or someone, is in the red or the black in the final analysis. I don't dismiss a person or a body of work for a few flaws, failings, incoherencies if their net worth is clearly positive.

 

[Hussar]

On the notion of the double standard.

I'm a bit confused here. I've been told that there is no difference between a fighter being able to go out and get a wish via paying some wizard and the wizard using Planar Binding. They are the same apparently.

Yet, the wizard gets hosed in every single example. The demon comes back for revenge, twists the wish, etc. Yet, the fighter gets his wish, no problems no fuss.

How is that not a double standard?

The fighter tries to use diplomacy (character resource that he has spent lots of character resources on - high Cha, Skill Focus, possibly other things that might make Diplomacy a class skill) and auto-fails by DM fiat (the DM has decreed that you will not pass). But, nothing bad happens to him. He just can't go this way. The wizard, OTOH, succeeds by using a Silent, Still Charm spell and still gets hosed in the end when the spell wears off - with examples including having three court wizards on hand to check for magical shenanigans.

Again, how is this not a double standard?

I look at the Chamberlain example exactly the way it plays out in Return of the Jedi. Luke hits the chamberlain with a Suggestion spell, and gets let into Jabba's throne room. Does Jabba simply order Luke killed on the spot (which is the response that I've gotten from N'raac for doing pretty much the same thing)? No. He backhands the chamberlain "Weak willed fool" and then engages Luke in a bit of light banter.

Granted, Luke does get thrown to the Rancour, but, that's got nothing to do with the Chamberlain, success or failure. That's a trap in the encounter. Fair enough. It's not like he got thrown to the rancour because he charmed the chamberlain. He got chucked in because he failed to convince Jabba, through a couple of diplomacy and possibly intimidate checks. And the failure to charm Jabba as well.

Again, no real problems with that. It happens. Hutt's are immune to charm. Fair enough. Luke didn't have the right Knowledge skills to know that, so, fine and dandy, even if Luke's player may or may not have known.

Or, go back to the Glabrezu example. Here's a solution. We Planar Bind the Glabrezu at the bottom of a pool of holy water. Now, he's dead and we cut him up into bits. We use the bits to power Simulacrum spells. Costs me 600 XP (half HD) and I get a wish every 28 days. After all, the wish is a racial ability, not tied to caster level (the Glabrezu lacks the caster levels to cast Wish as a spell). So, bingo, bango, now I can power wishes. It is 100% under the caster's command, so, I don't even have to be evil to do this. And, the Simulacrum lasts forever (at least until it's killed).

Which is why I don't buy the argument that you can simply limit caster power by exercising DM force. It doesn't work. It's like the little Dutch Boy sticking his finger in the dike. Plug one hole and three more open up. There's umpteen different ways to skin the cat. I mean, heck, what's to stop using Simulacrum on an Efreet? Again, the wish power isn't tied to caster level (it only has a caster level of 12th to begin with). That's even cheaper.

So, we stop the Simulacrum spell. But, to me, it's a never ending process. There are just so many spells in 3e, that you can never bring the casters down to non-caster levels. The only way you can do it is to either reject the core casters and go the sorcerer route, or, bring the non-casters up to par. Or, you eject the entire system, and make all classes use similar mechanics, a la the 4e route. Or, you go the AD&D route and really, really screw casters.

 

[Wicht]

So Hussar, you would feel better if we pointed out that a fighter trying to negotiate with a demon for a wish was going to have the same difficulties as a wizard? Consider it pointed out. The point is that the fighter has the option to arrange it, same as the wizard, albeit through different channels; not that the fighter will have an easier time of it.

Or, go back to the Glabrezu example. Here's a solution. We Planar Bind the Glabrezu at the bottom of a pool of holy water. Now, he's dead and we cut him up into bits. We use the bits to power Simulacrum spells. Costs me 600 XP (half HD) and I get a wish every 28 days. After all, the wish is a racial ability, not tied to caster level (the Glabrezu lacks the caster levels to cast Wish as a spell). So, bingo, bango, now I can power wishes. It is 100% under the caster's command, so, I don't even have to be evil to do this. And, the Simulacrum lasts forever (at least until it's killed).

Firstly, your reading of simulacrum is rather generous. Generally when you do a polymorph or the like, spell like abilities are not granted. The spell text, as I read it mentions nothing about duplicating spell like abilities so I wouldn't allow it. In point of fact, the spell specifically limits powers to Special Abilities appropriate for the HD, which for the Glabrezu would be rend. The creature is an illusion, not the real thing. A DM would be well within the rules to never give a simulacrum the ability to grant wishes (or cast any other spells for that matter; at least without using other spells in the creation, or via DM approval). Besides which, even without the spell text, I know that a 7th level spell should never be used to create a 9th level spell effect ex nihilio, so your understanding of the spell is somewhere flawed.

Secondly, I would rule that a lesser planar binding was a type of summoning, which means that the demon and all its gear disappear from the mortal plane once slain. As well, in many cosmologies, when a demon is "slain" on the mortal plane, its not really dead; just barred from returning to the mortal plane for a period of time.

Thirdly, such bad faith summoning is not going to make demon lords happy with you.

Now, let me hasten to point out that a fighter which pays for a demon to be summoned in the same way is going to have identical problems.