Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5509634" data-attributes="member: 11300">And this is a cool way to interpret it and shows the strength of 4e when the narrative and gamist elements are pulling so strongly in the same direction. But what happens if your big attack misses or you used it up in an earlier encounter? Wouldn't you prefer for your character to at least have the opportunity to give their best attack a go against the BBEG. This is why from a simulationist point of view, I would prefer that pulling your big move off is based on difficulty to do rather than a binary possible/impossible because it was limited by an artificial restriction. As I mentioned before, for some people they will barely even notice or even less worry about such things and they must wonder why people like me get a little bothered by it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I appreciate the onus placed upon the attacker but even still when combined altogether, there is not the level of differentiation between the two that I would prefer to see. Against more powerful enemies, the ratio of being affected actually improves in the wizard's favour, not the barbarian's. In play as such, the wizard does not seem to be suffering as much as the barbarian. Combine this with the overall incredibly speedy rate of recovery in 4e (Poison has literally a momentary effect that in most cases is quickly and completely nullified) and hopefully you can understand why this causes a simulationist style of play some measure of bother.I believe the argument still stands but you highlight the other part of this equation that rails against what a simulationist is thinking. It's kind of like AC as presented in 3e/4e or the alternative approach of AC in co-ordination with damage reduction . The former approximates the situation well enough, while the latter gives the more intricate details and story, without that story needing to be interpreted in retrospect. For example, for the story to make sense, you need to assume that a lot of the time for the barbarian when their fort is not breached, that they are hit but the poison has no effect (similar to plate armor in 3e where a lot of the misses are meant to be the armor absorbing the blow). However, when it comes to poison, the barbarian is technically still being hit but not poisoned yet not damaged either - which is all a little weird. In my mind, the 4e onus on the attacker approach is additionally not that successful for the simulationist as using poison again as the example, it does not accurately take into account how difficult a target is to hit and thus be poisoned. For example you might have a fighter and rogue with a fairly differentiated Fort defense but the rogue is much more dextrous with a superior reflex defense. Yet, the rogue must suffer the poison effect more often, even though the chances of the enemy actually hitting him should be much less so. What I'm trying to point out here is that having powers attack a single defense can skew or muddy the results of what the actions seem to be simulating. The mechanics are not able (and nor were they designed) for the reporting of such important simulationist details. You end up with a fun game with lots of tactical decisions but there is a noticable distortion of what is being simulated. This was obviously the goal of the designers as Rob Heinsoo indicated in that interview when he was talking about the game pushing away from a simulationist approach. Magic should still have it's mysterious and dark side (in my opinion). There is a generally accepted body of things that "magic" can achieve in fantasy but in 3e/4e there is little to restrict the rather perfect casting of magic - one area where magic does not match up with what I imagine magic to be like. In terms of 4e, things of a divine, primal or arcane nature can achieve these strangenesses. Things of a martial nature should still be able to do some damn impressive things; just damn impressive mundane things. If they are doing something "magical" I would prefer it to be through divine or in certain circumstances primal intervention or means but never arcane unless there is an arcane element to the character. And to have it a part of the martialist's daily regimen again stretches my belief in what magic is in a fantasy game. From a baseline point of view, I generally expect my wizards to be doing the extreme/mysterious things while the martial types are being obvious and effective. It is a matter of comparing the strange things an arcanist can perform as against the strange things a martialist can suffer (and keep going). If you prefer a different baseline, more power to you - to each their own. I think it all comes down to what we have in our heads in terms of fantasy and how well we can bend the game to be like that.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification