How Does "The Rules Aren't Physics" Fix Anything?

[Storm-Bringer]

And no, this doesn't mean that a kobold gets to grapple just as well as an ancient dragon. Unless its a kobold with 23 character class levels in a martial class, and an elite ability score array, in which case it might get close. I don't know why you thought otherwise, but consider the matter settled.

I considered it settled when I raised the question originally in response to the complaint that 'size category affects grapple'. Of course it does. An enormous dragon is going to have an enormous bonus to grapple, much like a medium sized PC is going to have an enormous advantage over a Fine size creature.

But, I appreciate you doing the math for me. I am lazy,and don't have my books available.

 

[Lacyon]

So, no real changes to either, then. Meaning that NPCs sometimes play by the same rules as PCs, but sometimes not. Which means, internal consistency is rather compromised.

I'm not sure how. I mean, Wizards use the same rules as Commoners, except when they don't.

But, it still describes the philosophy. PCs only. Unless the DM says otherwise. Which is not a change at all. Everyone seemed to breathe a sigh of relief because those pesky NPCs aren't getting raised all over the place now. Except, they weren't before either, unless the DM allowed it.

Right. Because DMs were either adding fluff/mechanics to exclude it, handwaving the issue, or allowing NPCs to get raised all over the place.

The change is that DMs who don't want NPCs getting raised all over the place don't have to invent new fluff/mechanics to prevent it or handwave the issue anymore, and DMs who want NPCs to get raised have to remove or alter that fluff/mechanic.

Naturally, those for whom creating the fluff/mechanic and/or handwaving wasn't a big deal, this is "no change". For those who didn't like having to do that, they're happy. For those who were fine with NPCs getting raised all over the place, they probably won't be happy, unless they also think that loosening the fluff/mechanic and/or handwaving it away isn't a big deal.

Which is more or less precisely how it works now. Access to a high level cleric and 5-10 thousand in diamonds isn't exactly a common graduation gift for first level adventurers in any previous edition. Until 'Paragon Tier' in previous versions, it was pretty difficult to get raised also.

"More or less" precisely? For varying degrees of "more" or "less", sure.

According to the demographics in the 3E DMG, 9th-level clerics aren't all that hard to find. I mean, it can take some work, but you can do it. And 5,000 in diamonds doesn't typically happen at first level, but a party of 3rd-4th characters with PC wealth could scrape together the money to raise their friend if they were willing. Heck, it only takes a 10% 'tithe' or 'property tax' from about 60 1st-level NPCs to gather the wealth necessary to raise a dead king. Spread that out over a kingdom and it's a pittance.

There are plenty of reasons why that king (or the 3rd-level PCs) might not get raised. It's not even that hard, IMO, to come up with one in most cases, but sometimes it's a stretch. For people who encountered those stretches with some frequency, the change is meaningful.

 

[drjones]

So, no real changes to either, then. Meaning that NPCs sometimes play by the same rules as PCs, but sometimes not. Which means, internal consistency is rather compromised.

Monsters and PCs also both have hit points. Oh noes!

 

[Cadfan]

While the larger point of high-level monsters being impossible to beat in a grapple is mostly true (there are a few feats for fighter-types that enable them to hold their own), it should be noted that grappling monsters are not targetting your touch AC. They have to hit your real AC, which is much easier to pump up. They also have to know where you are, which makes concealment effects (blur, displacement, or blink/darkness/cloud spells if you don't mind giving the monster concealment too) yet another defense against getting eaten.

I'm not sure what you mean. Step 2 in grappling is a touch attack.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure what you mean. Step 2 in grappling is a touch attack.

Most of the monsters that initiate grapples do so with improved grab, which is usually performed by a regular melee attack and not a touch attack.

 

[Andor]

To be more accurate, Newtonian physics that make spaceships behave like WWII-era aircraft that clumsy database admins and teenagers could pilot work for space flight sims, at least the ones people play for fun.

Or, said another way, playability trumps simulation every damn time. This guiding principle can also be applied to other games.

Unless of course, you're someone like me who, not being dog ignorant of physics, cringes every time he sees 'airplanes in space' and wonders what the hell is so hard about making an accurate space flight sim.

Similarly, if the rules are not actually how things work in the game world, but merely how my character perceives things to work, then I'm not really playing that character as far as I'm concerned. I'm playing what that character hallucinates as he sits in the corner of his padded cell. This is not good playability.

The 4e discussion is making it quite clear that some players want to do cool stuff, and don't care about what the world they do it in is like any more than Roy cares about listening to NPCs.

Others like to look at all that cool stuff and see a world in which it makes sense. A decanter of endless water means you can have a watermill anywhere. A permanant heat metal means you can have central heating. ("But they didn't have central heating in medieval europe!" someone whines. So what? The Romans did, although powered by slaves instead of magic.) A permanant chill metal = refrigerators. Only when we ask about these things the type 1 GM tells us we are thinking too much. Which tells us that the entire world is populated by dribbling morons, despite all those 18 ints.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

No, not disingenuous. I genuinely don't understand what you're saying.

NOTE: I just noticed that you clarified that the heart of your problem with 4e was my wilful misinterpretation. OK, fair enough. I'm not bundled with the 4e rulebooks*, though, so your dislike of me shouldn't affect your enjoyment of the game.

*I do, however, come with DDI, via the Virtual Rex Table!

I apologize, then, for my own misinterpretation, and there is no dislike between us from my end. I hope I haven't engendered any from yours.

I understand your point 2, "raise dead has not changed one whit". No problem there. But I don't understand your point 1 at all:

"The first point is, why is healing different than raise dead for NPCs?"
How is healing different from raise dead for NPCs? Is this difference unique to 4e?

"Can I apply successive healing spells to an NPC to bring them back up to full hit points?"
Yes, up to the limit of their healing surges, just like PCs, according to Chris Sims. So, that's not where your criticism of 4e lies.

Actually, it rather is. Allow me to clarify: there is a comparison, and a sub-point. The comparison is between healing and raise dead. Why are NPCs allowed one and not the other? Not the fluff, really, not the mechanics, but what problem was this intended to fix? This bring us to the sub-point: who was having a problem with NPCs getting raised all the time? In this edition and all previous ones, it was ultimately the DMs choice. There were already limitations in place. 9th level Cleric (suspiciously close to Paragon level. ). 5,000 gp in diamonds. Not cash, not a +3 Flametongue, not a suit of Mithril Plate of Etheralness. Diamonds. Plus an intact corpse no more than a week dead. For Resurrection, the financing was even more stringent. 10,000 in diamonds and a 13th level Cleric. Perhaps the king has a stash of diamonds and a high level cleric on retinue for such exigencies, but even a smidgin of verisimilitude suggests that the king won't be trotting out the cleric and a pile of diamonds every time some Tom, Duke or Baron gets themselves killed in a peasant uprising.

"Does it work when they are at zero? Or negatives?"
These are questions we haven't been told the answer to. However, I seem to remember a developer saying that the DM can just declare that all the dropped enemies are dead, so you don't have to go around the battlefield slitting throats after the battle. So this is an area where you may have a point that PCs will be explicitly treated differently than NPCs.

I would say that part is an indicator that NPCs are dead at zero, full stop. As a tactical option, I am not sure if that is what I would want in a game. Having your followers/henchmen falling out every battle could end up a problem.

"Does the DM let the entire mission fail because the NPC dies without an 'epic destiny' to allow them to be raised? Or does mission failure count as a 'destiny' for that NPC?"
I am sure that the intent is that the DM can choose to allow this NPC to be raised, if it allows the PC's mission to continue. However, if it makes things more interesting, the DM can mandate that the NPC stay dead. As you say, no different from 3e. So, this is not where your criticism of 4e lies.

That is correct. I don't necessarily have a problem with this in 4e. What sets me off is the notion that it is some great innovation. Especially since the later few announcements seem to comprise the same notion. A re-statement of how things are currently done so as to sound like a quantum leap of advancement.

"More importantly, how is that different than how it was handled in 3.x? I hear all kinds of people talking about how NPCs can be raised by high level clerics, but no talk of DMs simply saying "No, they can't be raised". I didn't seem to have a problem with NPCs getting raised behind my back when I was DMing."
Agreed. You maintain that 4e raise is no different from 3e raise dead - it's up to the DM. So this is not where your criticism of 4e lies.

I should have included this in the quote above.

I hope you'll understand my confusion and excuse me from the charge of being disingenuous. It seems to me that you are criticizing 4e, but I can't find any specific charges you level at it - except that it's unclear whether NPCs participate in the "dying" rules. Is that your problem with 4e?

As a factor of the strict-ish separation of PC and NPC rules, that would be more or less accurate. As an adjunct of the point that the rules are more streamlined, as well. To me, having NPCs following different rules than PCs by design will add to the handle time, at the very least. I have pointed out in other places how monster sub-systems will also add to handle time, and raise conflicts with players. Bugbear strangling, for example, or kobold firepots. Using rules to separate these things is problematic.

Again, I apologize for my earlier comments, and I hope I have clarified my views on this.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Sword Chucks and Arrows in your chest are also very lethal. Many people used to die to this when such weapons where still commonly applied. And then there was tetanus and similar unfriendly things that could kill or debilitate you even if you were just wounded, not killed.

Not as often as common knowledge would indicate. For example, unlike TV shows, it is rare for someone to fall over dead from a single knife stab. Without getting too morbid, I would advise looking up some crime statistics before basing an argument on the assumption that people are as frail as blown glass.

But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to use such stuff in a game where you do combat more then the few times regular humans do or did it...

There have been career soldiers for as long as there have been armies. Not all survivors of a battle were the ones that stayed in the back lines and didn't get hit.

As an extreme opinion: Why not? In turn, he deals a lot more damage, and can fling grappled targets around? And even if his chance is better, does it need to become auto-success? Why aren't his normal attacks auto-success? I mean, if he'd jump on a heavy armored Fighte,r that guy could move the required distance to evade the attack?

Off the top of my head, I would say a dragon is about the size of a 747. Further, it is about 100ft away from someone bearing down on them at about 300mph, which means that person has about a quarter second to get out of the way. With a wingspan of roughly 200ft, that person would have to run at about 600mph to get clear of the wing before the plane/dragon hits them.

Where would you place those odds? Further, where would you place the odds of that person knocking the front landing gear out of the way?

I'd say that's plain wrong. A +2 bonus to attacks is a +2 bonus to attacks. It might change from round to round, but it's only a single change. But a +4 enhancement bonus to Constitution means +2hp/level more hit points, a +2 to your fortitude save, and a +2 bonus to your Concentration Checks. But wait, didn't you already have another +2 enhancement bonus item that you already calculated in? Oh, and then you did get 1d10+Con temporary hit points from Heroes Feast. Did you remember that?

Except we are talking about an aura bonus to Spot checks, for example, that may change suddenly when the Elf moves too far away. But not too far away from everyone, just a couple of characters. One of which might be the Cleric with a healing aura.

Additionally, a +2 bonus to attacks at first level for a fighter is 200% better than they had. at 20th level, it is an increase of 10%. Clearly, a static bonus to attacks is level dependent.

Such DM brains are doomed to explode. But what is with DMs that just like to run a 10th level group against a Yuan-Ti Temple. Did you consider how many stats you have to create just to have enough Yuan-Ti in the apporpriate level range, without every encounter being a rehash? Considered how much effort it is to stat-up the Yuan-Ti High Priest alone?

Without every encounter being a re-hash? Like the 12th group of Kobold Skirmishers for the day? Like the Bugbear Strangler that everyone knows to keep pushing away with the Warlord's powers?

How many stats are needed to populate a Yuan-Ti temple? One Yuan-Ti's worth. Vary weapons if you want, add or subtract d20 hit points as needed. Stat up the High Priest and his three servitors. Fifteen minutes, tops.

Spell-Like abilities of considerably lower level then typical for the CR. Or spell-like abilities plainly inferior to any other options. Dragons with full sorceror spell-casting that was usually inferior to their regular attack routine. (But at least two buffs could totally break them - Mage Armor & Shield)

These two?

Mage Armour
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: No

An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.

Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor.

Shield
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 min./level (D)

Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.

You are claiming a +8AC bonus will totally negate a dragon? Or even it's spell casting? Or are you claiming the +8AC bonus applies to all saving throws? If that is the case, why doesn't the dragon cast the same spells and negate the party Wizard?

Why is Use Rope a skill at all? How many situations do you need it, compared to, say, Spot or Diplomacy? What are the in-game effects of a typical Use Rope skill compared to that of a typical Spot or Diplomacy check? How do I even know what DCs are appropriate for a party (without becoming to difficult or becoming a unintented cake-walk). I can use CR to eyeball monster encounters. Why isn't there anything that allows me to do the same for skills?

Do you mean something like this?

Rope Use has as many uses as rope does, I guess. I mean, it really feels like the development team or marketing or whoever are inventing these problems, and people run with them, then repeat them endlessly like gospel truth. If a particular group doesn't use each and every skill for every situation, it hardly means the skill is useless. It may be useless in that group. It may be that particular DM can't or won't create situations where a diverse set of skills is usable. None of that is particularly relevant. If a specific group doesn't use a skill, that is not even remotely evidence the skill is useless.

Oh, the mechanics do what they are intented to do. But they are usually so much inferior to regular types of attacks, why bother?

I have heard similar things about many at-will powers from playtesters at DDXP and other playtests.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Monsters and PCs also both have hit points. Oh noes!

And AC! Where does the madness stop??

Well, roughly there, it appears. Monsters have their own mini-system of powers that PCs can't access, among other differences.

 

[DandD]

As has been pointed out, Player Characters also have their own mini-system of powers that monsters can't access.

It's not that bad.