Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5634870" data-attributes="member: 6679265">You wrote before that page 42 &quot;hints at this around the edges&quot; about defining out-of-combat properties for a power. So it seems adjucating combat vs out-of-combat is not well understood in average gameplay.&nbsp;Many games are being played to the letter of the rules. Of those many games, many DMs/players may not have gotten the &quot;hint around the edges&quot; and if they did, they might be afraid to experiment with that social contract and affect game balance.&nbsp;You then wrote that for everyone else who does get it, 4E expects you to make some of those justifications yourself due to a social contract.&nbsp;What I'm seeing here is a kind double standard if you will...&nbsp;On one hand, 4E doesn't do a good job of clarifying page 42, or maybe not many people are seeing it, and many people instead play by the rules, and for those that do swing with page 42, there is a social contract to justify those distinctions.&nbsp;Yet with zone of truth, fabricate, etc. there is a Problem that Needs to Be Addressed.&nbsp;The double standard is that 4E is exempt from Problems due to a social contract clause, but 3E is fraught with problems like Zone of Truth and does not have the right to use the &quot;social contract&quot; clause like 4E does. &nbsp;I'm not saying that YOU said all of the above, but it's got to be one or the other -- if 4E is allowed to use a clause to escape from [some scenario] then 3E is allowed to use the same clause to escape from [zone of truth, fabricate, etc.]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yesway Jose, post: 5634870, member: 6679265"] You wrote before that page 42 "hints at this around the edges" about defining out-of-combat properties for a power. So it seems adjucating combat vs out-of-combat is not well understood in average gameplay. Many games are being played to the letter of the rules. Of those many games, many DMs/players may not have gotten the "hint around the edges" and if they did, they might be afraid to experiment with that social contract and affect game balance. You then wrote that for everyone else who does get it, 4E expects you to make some of those justifications yourself due to a social contract. What I'm seeing here is a kind double standard if you will... On one hand, 4E doesn't do a good job of clarifying page 42, or maybe not many people are seeing it, and many people instead play by the rules, and for those that do swing with page 42, there is a social contract to justify those distinctions. Yet with zone of truth, fabricate, etc. there is a Problem that Needs to Be Addressed. The double standard is that 4E is exempt from Problems due to a social contract clause, but 3E is fraught with problems like Zone of Truth and does not have the right to use the "social contract" clause like 4E does. I'm not saying that YOU said all of the above, but it's got to be one or the other -- if 4E is allowed to use a clause to escape from [some scenario] then 3E is allowed to use the same clause to escape from [zone of truth, fabricate, etc.] [/QUOTE]

Verification