Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fanboy2000" data-source="post: 4778570" data-attributes="member: 19998"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/254848-how-important-magic-dungeons-dragons-third-edition-vs-fourth-edition-38.html#post4778127" target="_blank">Mallus said</a> that the 'excuse' of narritive control is "consistent with the rules text." Your counter was that "<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/254848-how-important-magic-dungeons-dragons-third-edition-vs-fourth-edition-38.html#post4778183" target="_blank">t's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks.</a>" Well there is a basis in the rulebooks. If you think that narrative control should be given a more prominent place in the PHB with explicit references, I agree with you. I'm not sure what you think I agree with. My point was simply that there is passage in the rulebooks where narrative control is brought up in a positive manner. Based on that one passage, I doubt Wyatt expects people to start playing the way he described. What I do think, however, is that the rules were designed to allow that play style without any tweaking to the rules themselves.In other words, Mallus is right, narrative control is not only consistent with the rules, but has support from the guy who wrote the book for the ones who would have to give-up some control.No, you don't have to argue with me at all. You can just do what you've been doing, stating why you dissagee with me.True, but magic isn't stated as the reason martial powers work either, other reasons are given.In order to make a martial power magic, a person has to either define magic differently than the game does, or a person has to believe that the designers consistently left off magical descriptions from the text of the rules. These are reasonable things to do, because magic isn't real, what is magic is left up a given fictional world. Since players and DMs make their own fictional worlds when they play, they are free to use whatever definition of magic they feel is appropriate. I think exception based design is at the heart of the disagreement because the powers are the exception to the rules. I brought it up because you said you had played games designed around narrative control. My point is that 4e wasn't designed around narrative control, but narrative control is a possible way to use the powers (the exceptions to the general rules). First, the Melee Basic Attack and the Ranged Basic Attack are powers. (PHB 287) Their defined as "a basic attack is an at-will attack power that everyone possesses, regardless of class." The basic attacks you're talking about are powers.Second, there are tons of basic attacks in 4e besides the ones on PHB pg. 287. Monsters, in particular, typically have basic attacks that do a lot more than the ones in the PHB. The monster manual defines these powers as basic attacks and they can be used to make opportunity attacks (man, I hate that they turned that phrase around) which makes opportunity attacks much more dangerous.</blockquote>

Verification