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

[Nagol]

I find this argument strange...

I've watched my son perform the equivalent of CaGI several times in his Martial Arts tournaments. He intentionally fakes an opening. His opponent leaps in to take advantage of it...and my son scores some points as he takes advantage of his opponent. I mean, they teach it his class (multiple variations of it even)!

Is thus just case of people being unfamiliar with IRL fighting? (OTOH, I obviously don't know how well it would work on an ooze or ogre.)

To go even further:
My son recently participated in a tournament with a pulled muscle in his leg which was only partially healed. He knew he couldn't really kick for the match (only body and head kicks counted in this tournament) and, by the championship match*, so did his opponent.

Smartly, his opponent drove him into positions that forced him to use the injured leg more, but my son was faster and after several rounds, they approached the end of the match with my son a point behind and his opponent only one point from victory.

When the official yelled "begin!", my son leaped sidewise in a new direction, and then performed a lovely 3-point kick to opponent's head using his wounded leg. He then crumpled to the ground and nearly crawled back to the line to hear the result. Even though he was walking and icing it, and even performed a form with later, there was no way he was going to kick like that again that day.

I distinctly remember thinking to myself "Did the kid just use a martial daily to win that match?"

Make of that what you will.

*My son is far better than I ever was at this stuff, despite several attempts at it for me.

Are the opponents ignoring the ranged weapons in hand or deadly afraid of whatever weapon your son is wielding? I don't think anyone is saying CaGI can't ever function or that there is no real-world equivalent. I know I have no problem if it were handled as a champions-style presence attack or a mind control effect limited to affecting those not opposed to that action anyway. I'd still like the character controller to perform the actual movement so for example, the characters don't run over a hidden trap they know is present.

 

[piffany]

One of the things that I love about 4e is that it just throws power gaming out the window. This s why I get confused about people saying 4e seemed "metagamey" to them, because in my experience fully half the time groups I was in were "playing" 3e and earlier, they were really just engaging in endless, endless, endless character optimization.

4e lets my group just get on with it.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think anyone is saying CaGI can't ever function or that there is no real-world equivalent.

Exactly. You make it a mind-affecting ability with a saving throw and there are all kinds of ways I can see it working.

 

[Kraztur]

Exactly. You make it a mind-affecting ability with a saving throw and there are all kinds of ways I can see it working.

The fighter taunts the wizard "My mother was a mind-flayer and my father smelt of calamari! No, seriously, it's true, I've got illithid in my blood. Now come here, you!"

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

Are the opponents ignoring the ranged weapons in hand or deadly afraid of whatever weapon your son is wielding? I don't think anyone is saying CaGI can't ever function or that there is no real-world equivalent. I know I have no problem if it were handled as a champions-style presence attack or a mind control effect limited to affecting those not opposed to that action anyway. I'd still like the character controller to perform the actual movement so for example, the characters don't run over a hidden trap they know is present.

I thought CaGI didn't work if the target couldn't end adjacent to you? I mean three squares (15 ft.) Is really not a lot of room. I can see plenty of reasons for such opponents to try and charge the warrior. Heck, I'm fair sure Legolas does this in some of the LotR movie scenes.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I thought CaGI didn't work if the target couldn't end adjacent to you? I mean three squares (15 ft.) Is really not a lot of room. I can see plenty of reasons for such opponents to try and charge the warrior. Heck, I'm fair sure Legolas does this in some of the LotR movie scenes.

Imagine archers on a raised platform with battlements. The fighter can't reach them, but if he gets close enough to the wall he can make them jump down from behind cover and melee him.

 

[Nagol]

I thought CaGI didn't work if the target couldn't end adjacent to you? I mean three squares (15 ft.) Is really not a lot of room. I can see plenty of reasons for such opponents to try and charge the warrior. Heck, I'm fair sure Legolas does this in some of the LotR movie scenes.

So you can't conceive of a character motivation or situation that would prevent a rational being from charging forward and engaging in melee?
It's a pacifist?
It is supremely competent with missile fire but only fair with melee?
It has had this trick pulled on it once before by this character?
It is a sorcerer supreme that only needs 6 more seconds of concentration to complete the ritual giving it unending life?
It considers the instigator beneath it and refuses to engage in any form of interaction whatsoever?

Nothing should prevent it from engaging in melee because the fighter <reason>?

 

[billd91]

Exactly. You make it a mind-affecting ability with a saving throw and there are all kinds of ways I can see it working.

I don't have a problem with some effects being mundane as long as they have a save, that is, after all, how feinting works in the game too and nobody considers that mind control. But I think the result needs to be more nuanced than CaGI's one-size-fits-all solution since it isn't true mind control.

 

[TwoSix]

Nothing should prevent it from engaging in melee because the fighter <reason>?

Nothing should prevent it from engaging in melee because FIGHTER.

 

[Manbearcat]

You... getting all realistic at me!

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!

It's not my fault the game system has no system for reducing damage to objects based on how hard the material is; let's call it Hardness nor adjusts the amount of damage meaningfully based on damage type and material. The rules at the table say a tiny steel object is destroyed by 15 hp damage. The size guidelines indicate hinges -- even those on a vault -- count as tiny (a chest is the next category up). I'm pretty sure the effect produced by the Wizard inflicts that much. If not I might allow an Arcana check to turn the AoE into a tight arc and up the damage another [W] (or whatever Wizards use in its place).

No need to use the stunting rules when perfectly viable specific rules are available.

Here is where I was going with this angle - based on RaW and from a process-sim extrapolation. One that would just take the fun right the hell out of this sort of cool idea:

1) The hinges of a D&D era setting would typically be wrought-iron barrel hinges with two interlocking leaves wrapped around the same pivot pin.

2) The temp at which iron melts is a wee bit over 1500 C.

3) Iron weakens dramatically at 1/6 that temp and will always have failed fully by half that temp.

4) Any items made of it will have failed completely long before they reach the melting point. The failure of a barrel hinge means the leaves will detach from the structure they are anchored to (in this case probably wood which retains its strength much longer than steel when exposed to fire) and the pin will release. Both will be on the floor.

5) There wouldn't be requisite quenching of the slagged metal (that is on the floor anyway - destroyed - and therefore can't "weld" the door shut) in order to harden it.

6) Therefore, no fun!

The only "fun" way to do this is just to abstract the hell out of it and let the wizard roll an arcana check to superheat the flames and basically instantaneously fuse the wood and iron to the stonework with a successful attack versus fort. Easy, universal resolution that takes no handling time. No looking up odd tables. No maddening process-sim extrapolation and no ruling negotiation at the table where one person understands the physics behind the situation while the other may not (this could be player or GM). No pace destroying table handling time or egregious mental overhead. Just done. Pacing retained, game keeps going, and hopefully folks are having fun.

This above is why Fighters can't have nice things. They are beholden to this process while Wizards are typically loling right past it with their robust packages of fiat.

When I read this, the first thought that popped into my head is that this "problem" at my table is an acceptable and perhaps even appreciated side-effect of a culture of freedom rather than a benevolent dictatorship (the culture incentivized by the system, not the hand of the DM which could go either way). Is that bad? It also reminds me where they say "Welcome to rulings, not rules" in the "Rules Discussion: Somatic Components and Restrained" thread, which got messy adjucating if a wizard could cast spells while stuck in a web.

I'm very familiar with it. I've GMed over 15 years of it and still do now and again. The latter part you mention, and the above that I outline, is what makes my stomach turn at the prospect of returning to it. I don't want to spend any table handling time on gleaning/sorting out the exact temperature of a various fire spells, applying forensic engineering knowledge, and then explaining that to people at the table (who probably don't give a crap) because our models for existence don't comport with each other. I just want to relax, focus on the fiction, and have fun. Not make rulings with a randomly opaque ruleset that tasks me with looking up a dozen different entries a session, extrapolate the prospects of their plan based on science and engineering, and then learn up my players on how silly they are in thinking their hair-brain schemes would actually work (and feel like and be an absolute jerk while doing it).

- Give me keyword Fire: Ignites and melts stuff.
- Give me the minimal required to run the vast majority of situations.
- Then give me a robust system for consistently adjudicating (stunts) exceptions.

Table handling time reduced. Mental overhead reduced. Fiction and resolution mechanics. Win.