log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
Why is that implausible? Where is it defined that these 'deep reserves' must be generic?

It's implausible because it's not defined. You haven't told me what these "reserves" are, and so without anything to go on it's more plausible (via association with the fighter's concept as a non-magical character) to presume that they're physical abilities.

If that's not the case, then give them greater definition, because by itself "reserves" doesn't tell me anything. If it's not informing me as to what it is within the context of the game world then it's not associated.

Why does it matter that it's not magic? Are you trying to suggest that non-magical abilities are all generic and call upon some single, undifferentiated pool of potential?

Usually when one thing tires you out so much that you can't use it again, that level of fatigue affects your performance in other areas, yes.

Why not? Characters in fantasy are clearly capable of quite a range of remarkable feats, yet they don't just do the most powerful/effective one every time - who's to say there aren't some limitations on which they can do how often to explain why that is?

We are to say, because unlike passive audience members we're the ones who get to peak behind the curtain and see the "how" of things. We get to see what those limitations are, and can determine if they make sense within the context of the game world or not.

What kind of detail are looking for in defining 'exactly' what 'deep reserves' represent?

Starting with if they're natural or supernatural would help. "Magic" carries an inherent definition of "not bound by conventional understanding of things," and so in turn can set its own understanding for how it works. "Reserves," by contrast, carry no such inherent definition. Just throwing that term around doesn't tell me anything about how they work within the context of the game world, and so fail to associate.

Why can't they be discrete? You keep saying they aren't or can't be, but don't offer a reason.

See above. If you're not defining these as magical, then why should they be discrete?

neo-Vancian is the 5e system of separate prepared spells and 'slots' that are used to cast prepared spells (you no longer lose memory of the prepared spells). AFAIK, 5e has yet to offer a rationalization for the system, though I coiuld've missed it.

Magic doesn't need to rationalize itself; how magic works is inherently self-explanatory.

For that matter, what's so reasonable about classic Vancian - where spells are 'impressed upon the magic-user's brain' and 'whiped clean by casting,' - which isn't so much a reason as a re-statement of the memorization mechanic? What's plausible about the energy of AD&D Vancian magic coming from a positive plane that the material components of the spell are swapped to, when not all spells have components, and some with large components arguably involve more energy than those with less or none?

See above. Because magic has no inherently defining characteristics - beyond that it's not bound b the conventional understanding of the way things work - it gets to set its own rules.

Any or all of those are less reasonable or plausible than an heroic fantasy character calling upon deep reserves to perform a preternatural feat.

No, they're more reasonable. We know magic is inherently supernatural - we have no idea if that's true for "deep reserves" (though here you seem to be implying that they are, since you said that fighter abilities are "preternatural").
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No - if they limited CaGI to only melee attackers, people might not have complained. It's the idea of archers or spellcasters charging heedlessly into melee that really got old fast.
I suppose you could have put a Special line in CaGI to give such enemies an alternative to closing those 10' (Really, if you're w/in range of CaGI, you're already too close to the fighter for safety). Something like "A creatures who would be pulled can instead choose to be pushed twice the number of squares. A creature who chooses to be pushed is also stunned (save ends)."

It would be matter of giving into cowardice instead of facing the fighter.

Obviously, when a creature is missed by the power's WILL attack, they do the rational thing - on their turn.

That'd really be more complexity than is typical of a 4e power - though not unheard of.
 


Kraztur

First Post
I think the humorisms are kind of telling. Maybe the "important bits" had started to get... just a tad repetitive and head-buttingy. Maybe those engaging in the important bits should look around them for a moment, and consider...

And yes, "head-buttingy" is a word.
No, don't give it away. Those still engaging in importants bits in the backdrop is what makes the humourisms so delightful!
 

there are certain things that should be the pervue of magic: controlling other creature's minds is one of them. Its the oldest magical effect in the book. I don't think fighter's should do it. More broadly, I don't like the idea that any character should be able to move another one (PC or NPC) without external force (shoving them, magical compulsion) or player consent.
You don't need magical mind control to influence what others do. If you did, con men would be out of business. Think about what fight scenes look like. Don't you ever see one character force another back, not by pushing him, but by making a series of aggressive attacks so that he's /forced/ to retreat? Yes, /all the time/.

Not that the realism argument is even valid for a Fantasy RPG, but, even if it were, it'd fail in this instance.
 

The important bits are the bits that are important contributions like "QFT" and "This" and fallacies and carefully articulated words that suddenly change people's minds after years of resistance ;)

Personally, I get much more reliable results by careful applications of a rubber hose.

Then, an amazingly high four percent of people actually change their opinions! The rest go mad, of course. But that's no different than the current method.
 


Kraztur

First Post
Personally, I get much more reliable results by careful applications of a rubber hose.

Then, an amazingly high four percent of people actually change their opinions! The rest go mad, of course. But that's no different than the current method.
Indeed. I went mad many pages ago. Thanks mr rubber hose.
 





Lalato

Explorer
Basically all of the arguments can be boiled down to...

"It depends what the definition of "is" is."

Also, too...

Head-buttingy is an artifact found in the 9th level of Tomb of Horrors. It is sometimes also pronounced "Head-butt Thingy" by the one thousand Flameskulls that guard it. I believe it gives you a +5 to Charge Attacks, and does Double Damage on a Miss to simulate the Head-Butt which has the Unavoidable keyword.
 

Kraztur

First Post
Is it square or round? And is it moving on the diagonal (making it FASTER)?
Everyone imagines in their own head what kind of tumbleweed it is. But they can't discuss it amongst themselves, lest their theatres of the mind explode from the contradictions.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I suppose you could have put a Special line in CaGI to give such enemies an alternative to closing those 10' (Really, if you're w/in range of CaGI, you're already too close to the fighter for safety). Something like "A creatures who would be pulled can instead choose to be pushed twice the number of squares. A creature who chooses to be pushed is also stunned (save ends)."

It would be matter of giving into cowardice instead of facing the fighter.

Obviously, when a creature is missed by the power's WILL attack, they do the rational thing - on their turn.

That'd really be more complexity than is typical of a 4e power - though not unheard of.

It could also have worked if the effect line was "For one round, any creature affected who makes an attack must target the fighter. Any creature who enters your threatened area automatically provokes an OA from you upon entering." That way, the creature is now taunted and if he makes the next obvious choice and goes for the opening/taunt, he get whacked, but he has the choice as to how.

Even that is imperfect (since it still draws aggro), but it clears up a lot of corner case scenarios (a bloodied creature, a cowardly creature, a ranged attacker, etc) by allowing the creature to choose his method of attack.
 

It's implausible because it's not defined. You haven't told me what these "reserves" are, and so without anything to go on it's more plausible (via association with the fighter's concept as a non-magical character) to presume that they're physical abilities.
What's wrong with them being physical abilities (though, really, there are plenty of non-magical mental abilities, too).

by itself "reserves" doesn't tell me anything. If it's not informing me as to what it is within the context of the game world then it's not associated.
It's not like the word is meaningless. The meaning is quite clear, the hero can make super-human efforts of strength, courage, and so forth, but cannot do so without limit. When he doesn't make such an effort, he is keeping those extraordinary resources 'in reserve.' Thus 'reserves.' It's a perfectly normal, English-language use of the word, not even the crazy jargon that the mechanics side relies upon so heavily.


Usually when one thing tires you out so much that you can't use it again, that level of fatigue affects your performance in other areas, yes.
Well, sure, IRL, /usually/. OTOH, you can be exhausted from doing knowledge work and unable to make progress, but well-able to go outside play a game of basketball.

But, really, why would the limitations of real people, doing ordinary things, have any bearing on what heroic characters from a fantasy story might or might not do?


We are to say, because unlike passive audience members we're the ones who get to peak behind the curtain and see the "how" of things. We get to see what those limitations are, and can determine if they make sense within the context of the game world or not.
That sounds like you're getting meta-gamey, there. If the character knows that if he makes the extraordinary effort to pull off a dramatic stunt, that he won't be able to do it again, as well, right away - and the player knows he has an encounter power and recourse to p42, what's dissociated? I mean, if you're saying the player needs to know /better/ than the character the explanation for the limitation, /that/ sounds like breaking association more than establishing it.



See above. If you're not defining these as magical, then why should they be discrete?
You're begging the question. You claim that 'deep reserves' can't be discrete because they're not magical. Why not? What makes you think all non-magical ability is absolutely generic? In fantasy, magical and non-magical abilities both tend to be represented as being unique skills and talents. A great swordsman isn't automatically also a great poet. A wizard who can conjure lightning can't necessarily make it rain. If anything, magic is more often depicted as a generic resource.


Magic doesn't need to rationalize itself; how magic works is inherently self-explanatory.
How magic works is generally /not explained at all/. If not explaining why something works a certain way, only that it does work that way, is not


No, they're more reasonable. We know magic is inherently supernatural - we have no idea if that's true for "deep reserves" (though here you seem to be implying that they are, since you said that fighter abilities are "preternatural").
We know that, in 4e, per the PH1, that martial exploits are /not/ supernatural, but can perform superhuman feats. Preternatural sums that up neatly. So, the 'deep reserves' that make martial dailies associative, are not magic and not supernatural, but they are clearly extraordinary - not something just everyone has, for instance. That's seems perfectly reasonable, plausible and consistent with such abilities being possessed by heroic figures in a fantasy setting.

See above. Because magic has no inherently defining characteristics - beyond that it's not bound b the conventional understanding of the way things work - it gets to set its own rules.
What do you mean by a 'conventional understanding of the way things work?' The way things are conventionally understood to work in the fantasy genre, for instance, includes magic - and includes heroes who don't use magic, yet perform all sorts of super-human feats, and would be fairly well-defined by the set of common genre memes and tropes. If you mean that magic isn't bound by the understanding of people who don't understand magic - well, sure, that's a given.

And if magic has no defining characteristics, then it explains nothing (as in the case of the English language idiom 'like magic'), and is neither reasonable nor plausible nor understandable by the character, and thus /always/ dissociative at the level of rigour you're demanding of the explanation of martial dailies, above.
 

It could also have worked if the effect line was "For one round, any creature affected who makes an attack must target the fighter. Any creature who enters your threatened area automatically provokes an OA from you upon entering."
That's going to have the opposite of the desired effect, since the OA would discourage the enemy from closing rather than drawing it in. A severe consequence for not closing - like being marked for the rest of the encounter, or imposing a save-ends condition (so shaken with fear of the fighter that he's dazed or stunned; having to use his standard action every round to move as far from the fighter as safely possible, something bad enough that all but the most melee-allergic creatures wouldn't go for it).

Even that is imperfect (since it still draws aggro), but it clears up a lot of corner case scenarios (a bloodied creature, a cowardly creature, a ranged attacker, etc) by allowing the creature to choose his method of attack.
'Aggro' is a pretty convenient class of mechanics. If the excuse for the creature who's will has been hit is that it's cowardly, bloodied, or unable to attack in melee, then fleeing or surrendering sound like good alternate options. ;)
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
It's a little over the top to claim authority to define /the central tenant to RPGs/, especially one as odd as 'character's ability to attempt anything.' You'd think something relating to RP or, perhaps even playing a Game, might be a better candidate.

I gotta agree here. I think it would be more appropriate to say that one important feature of TTRPGs is that the players and their characters are not constrained to a limited set of responses prescribed by the rules. However that's certainly not THE defining characteristic of RPGs or else Whose Line Is It Anyway suddenly becomes an RPG.
 

keterys

First Post
Today I learned that Come and Get It could have been "fixed" by making it more complicated:

Hit: The target chooses to either be pulled 2 squares and take 1W damage, or to be stunned until the end of their next turn and marked until the end of the encounter.

That's kinda cool to know.

Also, gassy gnolls. Full Stop.
 

I gotta agree here. I think it would be more appropriate to say that one important feature of TTRPGs is that the players and their characters are not constrained to a limited set of responses prescribed by the rules. However that's certainly not THE defining characteristic of RPGs or else Whose Line Is It Anyway suddenly becomes an RPG.
And, really, whether a mechanic is associative or dissociative (if the distinction is even meaningful given how varied, fluid, and inconsistently applied the definitions tend to be), it could be enabling or restrictive.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top