Forked Thread: Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

[Fenes]

An interesting "reversal" in paradigm - Bo9S powers require you to be in the right position to use a power. 4E rewards you for using the power when in the right position. The net effect is still the same - using the right power in the right situation is always better. But the latter gives you more ways to experiment with a power.

But this also with a caveat:
But it has been some time since I read the Bo9S - is this actually an accurate description? Because I actually do not remember powers with specific situational prerequisites. I thought they were just like 4E powers - use them at any time, but you better figure the best time.

Well, based on what powers I saw used in play:

Wyrm's Fire is a cone AE attack - positioning is important to get more bang out of it.

Swooping Dragon Strike requires you to come down on an opponent - either make a good jump check, or find a ledge to jump down from. Positioning - especially if the enemy is in a higher spot - is important.

Shadow jump (or what it is called) is a dimension door type power, and its use is highly situational - without a good spot to jump to, it's useless.

Then there's the power that does damage to anyone you pass - that needs a good set up as well, to be effective.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, based on what powers I saw used in play:

Wyrm's Fire is a cone AE attack - positioning is important to get more bang out of it.

Swooping Dragon Strike requires you to come down on an opponent - either make a good jump check, or find a ledge to jump down from. Positioning - especially if the enemy is in a higher spot - is important.

Shadow jump (or what it is called) is a dimension door type power, and its use is highly situational - without a good spot to jump to, it's useless.

Then there's the power that does damage to anyone you pass - that needs a good set up as well, to be effective.

Swooping Dragon Strike seems to be the only power that I didn't see yet among 4E powers. Fighters get Close Burst powers, and of course they require sensible positioning. Shadow jump is basically Fey Step - if you don't have anything interesting to jump from or to, it's useless.

 

[LostSoul]

We're discussing the rules as they are, not what we can HR them into.

Why do you think describing things in a way that doesn't violate the constraints of the mechanics constitutes a house rule?

 

[mmu1]

Some might also point out the edition wars are off-limits right now, and that "4E is not an RPG" clearly falls into that category.

No, it doesn't fall into that category. I just looked at the sticky, and it specifically mentions being able to talk about things you like or don't like about 4E.

If you don't like this thread, report it - it's the moderators' job to decide what's appropriate, not yours.

 

[LostSoul]

Some might argue that 4E makes a terrific fantasy skirmish game, but not a good role-playing game. I'm not sure if I'm there yet, but I wouldn't dismiss anyone who dislikes the jarring meta-game elements.

Other people might argue that 4E makes a fine RPG. I wouldn't dismiss those who say that immersion is possible in 4E and others who say that immersion in character doesn't define role-playing.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, it doesn't fall into that category. I just looked at the sticky, and it specifically mentions being able to talk about things you like or don't like about 4E.

I submit "4E is not an RPG" does not qualify as discussing things you don't like about 4E, because implicit in that statement is "previous editions of D&D are RPGs".

If you don't like this thread, report it - it's the moderators' job to decide what's appropriate, not yours.

I would report it, if I thought it were inappropriate. But my post, like the post (not thread) I was responding to, used the carefully-considered phrasing of "some might..." such that no actual argument was being made.

 

[lutecius]

There are many ways to implement a game system without using daily or encounter powers.
The question is not if it's lazy or simple design, but if it's actually better gameplay to use the "Vancian" combat model? I don't want a game system that bogs me down with too many details. But I still want to have a complex game system with many ways to "style" a character or to run a combat. I want complexity without complicated.
The at-will/encounter/daily power scheme is considerably easier to handle then using Iron Heroes token system, or something akin to 3E tactical feats or Book of Iron Might. Yet, despite the simplicity in grasping the core concepts and using them, it still has a lot of complexity.
Do you know any systems that are similar uncomplicated yet still provide a lot of emergent complexity? If you look into all the material that the OGL and the d20 System has to offer, do you see anything that achieves that? Or do you just believe there must be something better, but haven't any ideas on how that would like? Or do you don't agree with the goals itself - complexity yes, complicated no? Would two yes or two nos be okay for you, too?

Now that martial abilities are in line with spells, almost any non vancian spell system would do, actually.

I already mentioned power points. They better simulate fatigue or ki than independent slots for each exploit. They are also more flexible but not harder to track and require some resource management. All of which i find more interesting, even from a "gamist" pov, than 4e safeties like set per encounter powers and action points.

Iron Heroes tokens were needlessly complex because of the different ways to earn them. Balancing that must be a nightmare too. A unified pool representing fatigue is simpler.

The true20 fatigue mechanic is fine too (basically, you can use fatiguing powers untill you fail a check an then need some rest) but the true20 powers themselves are a bit messy and could use some cleaning up (which is odd because the system is otherwise very elegant and streamlined)


I find the 4e system lazy because its apparent balance relies too much on powers being used only once per day or encounter, so that designers don't have to worry too much about broken powers being abused.

A balanced power point system wouldn't be more complicated but would certainly require more math and playtesting on wotc's part.
So they went the easy way, at the expense of realism and flexibility.
I guess this is why they copped out on AC as damage reduction and actual multiclassing too.
Not a fair trade, as far as i'm concerned, because I do care about "realism" and consider the hard math and balance part is what designers are paid for.

Off-Topic: luteciusm, when I try to quote your posts, each sentence or line is encapsulated by color (white) and font tags (verdana)? Do you know why? Because I can't really see a visual difference between "normal" posts and your posts. It makes it harder to quote you.

That would be because i'm not "normal" Since the switch to enworld2, weird things happen whenever i post or quote something. Sometimes the text is black by default (hard to read on this background) so I turn it white. I guess that's what happened.
I had no idea it would show on the other side, because the font tags don't appear when I type or even when I quote my own posts (they did with enworld1)
Do they show up if you quote this post? because I didn't do anything special this time. I hope it's not some saved settings thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Now that martial abilities are in line with spells, almost any non vancian spell system would do, actually.

I already mentioned power points. They better simulate fatigue or ki than independent slots for each exploit. They are also more flexible but not harder to track and require some resource management. All of which i find more interesting, even from a "gamist" pov, than 4e safeties like set per encounter powers and action points.

Iron Heroes tokens were needlessly complex because of the different ways to earn them. Balancing that must be a nightmare too. A unified pool representing fatigue is simpler.

The true20 fatigue mechanic is fine too (basically, you can use fatiguing powers untill you fail a check an then need some rest) but the true20 powers themselves are a bit messy and could use some cleaning up (which is odd because the system is otherwise very elegant and streamlined)


I find the 4e system lazy because its apparent balance relies too much on powers being used only once per day or encounter, so that designers don't have to worry too much about broken powers being abused.

I think it was also a way to encourage (okay: force) variety. You can't just take your favorite best trick again and again.

And limiting them to per encounter or per day also gives you more design space - you can create a "slightly" broken power knowing that it will be abused rarely or requires specific conditions to be abused.
The Ranger abuse power - Cascade of Blades? - might be such an example: extremely powerful against a Solo monster, but who guarantees that you fight a Solo monster today? Or that you don't have to spend it against a Elite before you meet the Solo? If you can count on using a different power in all situations this power is suboptimal.

If you free up the availability of powers, your design space is a lot tighter. You don't really want to eliminate the "winner" powers. You just want them harder to use.

A balanced power point system wouldn't be more complicated but would certainly require more math and playtesting on wotc's part.
So they went the easy way, at the expense of realism and flexibility.
I guess this is why they copped out on AC as damage reduction and actual multiclassing too.
Not a fair trade, as far as i'm concerned, because I do care about "realism" and consider the hard math and balance part is what designers are paid for.

I think they went for a system that gives them enough design space for new powers, and keeps the game interesting. But they still have sacrificed realismn for it, no doubt. I just think you can't have everything, and the designers took their pick.

That would be because i'm not "normal" Since the switch to enworld2, weird things happen whenever i post or quote something. Sometimes the text is black by default (hard to read on this background) so I turn it white. I guess that's what happened.
I had no idea it would show on the other side, because the font tags don't appear when I type or even when I quote my own posts (they did with enworld1)
Do they show up if you quote this post? because I didn't do anything special this time. I hope it's not some saved settings thing.

Interesting, this quote looks normal. It was in the part that was between the quote tags when I quoted you. Did you ask in Meta if somebody could figure out the issue?

 

[LostSoul]

[sblock]

If power descriptions are going to be so flexible and interchangeable, what’s the point of having them in the first place? or colourful names if they don't fit the effects? or power sources? or even classes?

Power description is one of the few things that still differentiate classes with the same role. It’s not like the mechanical effects are that different.

1. Descriptions are useful as a starting point.
2. Colourful names are cooler and easier to remember that "Power 9".
3. Power sources are fluff describing how your powers work. Change it if you don't like it - it's only fluff.
4. Classes have different abilities and do different things, even within the same role.

[/sblock]

None of which I care for if in the end there is little correlation between the fluff and the crunch. Magic cards have fancy names and flavour text too (and often better art). I expect a little more from an rpg.

There is a lot of correlation between the fluff and crunch, it's just not total.

[sblock]

Who is going to decide what description is appropriate if there are no guidelines? As a dm, adjudicating this on top of every else would quickly become erm... unfun. As a player, it would also devaluate the coolness/kick-assitude of my "real" dailies.

1. The group uses its own guidelines based on personal taste.
2. The DM doesn't have to adjudicate description because it doesn't have a mechanical effect.
3. Your "real" dailies do cool things - in mechanical terms.

[/sblock]

1 - Re-fluffing powers according to the order in which they are used is confusing and detracts from the game.
2 - I was addressing Mustrum’s notion of "reasonable". Of course someone has to adjudicate improvised descriptions. They have an impact on the adventure’s tone and consistency.
3 - I don’t find rpg mechanics "cool". Only what they represent and how they represent it. Otherwise I’d be playing some board game with much cooler mechanics.

1. How does describing things based on the group's own taste become confusing and detract from the game?

2. The "adjudication" that goes on is just a question of personal taste. Did you like it? If so, cool. If not, call the player on it.

That's not something special - this happens all the time. If we decided to play dirty D&D mercenaries and one guy starts describing his guy wearing a polyester leisure suit and a fur coat, he gets called for it. Same thing.

3. So you only consider the descriptions of your actions cool - and not actually bringing a guy down to 0 hp? That's great - you get more opportunities to describe cool actions when the fluff and the rules are not tied tightly together.

(The rules don't represent anything, because the game world doesn't exist. It only exists so far as you describe it.)

I completely understand that others don't care about the in-game implications of encounter/dailies. Filling the blanks is ok too.

But I don't think the in-game inconsistencies are a feature, or that having to justify and work around them is particularly fun. I’d rather use the time and effort for more creative things like adventure prep and world building.

I don't think it takes hours to come up with a quick description of your daily power that makes sense.

 

[IanArgent]

That would be because i'm not "normal" Since the switch to enworld2, weird things happen whenever i post or quote something. Sometimes the text is black by default (hard to read on this background) so I turn it white. I guess that's what happened.
I had no idea it would show on the other side, because the font tags don't appear when I type or even when I quote my own posts (they did with enworld1)
Do they show up if you quote this post? because I didn't do anything special this time. I hope it's not some saved settings thing.

Tagging like that causes me to not be able to read on my PDA - which has a white background for some reason...