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

[BryonD]

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.

Yeah, I'm ok with that. I accept that "mind-affecting" tends to imply non-mundane. But really, a feint is "mind-affecting". It won't work on a mindless ooze, for example.

 

[Kraztur]

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>?

If I understand 4E correctly, all those situations are plausible, but none of those situations will be plotted out for a 4E encounter. In other words, in 4E, fighters using CaGI will NEVER ever fight a pacifist. However, a pacifist can be encountered if no PC has CaGI or the figher already expended his CaGI. In that case, it's OK.

Is that right? I think I get it, it just seems so incredibly unsatisfying to me. If I was a DM, I would apply the [I'm not an idiot] keyword to such situations to make the non-idiotic target immune to CaGI. Or maybe the player would voluntarily refrain from using CaGI? Or maybe the player -- being considerate of verisimilitude -- would evolve a mind-control origin backstory? More likely though, I would be playing 5E.

 

[Nagol]

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



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!

You shouldn't be trying to inject your understanding of our reality into a gonzo game like D&D

The rules are clear. My way uses them cleanly. Your way uses a improvisational system that achieves the same result if it works, but probably has a lower chance of success. Both are outcome-based as opposed to the process-focus above which really has no place in this game engine.

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.

Or you know, use the abstract rules as they exist and let the player break the object that's well within their capacity to break.

 

[Nagol]

If I understand 4E correctly, all those situations are plausible, but none of those situations will be plotted out for a 4E encounter. In other words, in 4E, fighters using CaGI will NEVER ever fight a pacifist. However, a pacifist can be encountered if no PC has CaGI or the figher already expended his CaGI. In that case, it's OK.

Is that right? I think I get it, it just seems so incredibly unsatisfying to me. If I was a DM, I would apply the [I'm not an idiot] keyword to such situations to make the non-idiotic target immune to CaGI. Or maybe the player would voluntarily refrain from using CaGI? Or maybe the player -- being considerate of verisimilitude -- would evolve a mind-control origin backstory? More likely though, I would be playing 5E.

Umm. What? What happens when fighter picks the fight -- nothing was plotted out for a combat here, but the fighter gets it in his head that these religious folk are really diabolists in disguise and starts killing them? (Actual story from a different game system... there had been clues that there was something odd going on. Players completely misconstrued the situation and nearly eliminated the pacifist monks before the rest could surrender).

I'd be happy with an "I'm not an idiot flag" for use. One's not available and/or it's considered improper because you are undercutting the defined abilities of one of the characters.

Actually, thinking about every last option I listed above happened at one time or another in my games.

 

[Nagol]

Nothing should prevent it from engaging in melee because FIGHTER.

The only response I can conceive of is Bwa-Haa-Haa. Oh. You weren't joking. Sorry about that.

 

[TwoSix]

The only response I can conceive of is Bwa-Haa-Haa. Oh. You weren't joking. Sorry about that.

Your loss, mate.

 

[Campbell]

Umm. What? What happens when fighter picks the fight -- nothing was plotted out for a combat here, but the fighter gets it in his head that these religious folk are really diabolists in disguise and starts killing them? (Actual story from a different game system... there had been clues that there was something odd going on. Players completely misconstrued the situation and nearly eliminated the pacifist monks before the rest could surrender).

I'd be happy with an "I'm not an idiot flag" for use. One's not available and/or it's considered improper because you are undercutting the defined abilities of one of the characters.

Actually, thinking about every last option I listed above happened at one time or another in my games.

In this particular case if the fighter makes successful Will attacks against them I would most likely have them attempt to restrain the blood crazed fighter who is trying to kill them or if appropriate they might cling to the fighter and beg for mercy. Come and Get It doesn't stipulate what it's victims must do once they get within range. I generally start with trying to consider if I can come up with a justification that works. For instance, a wizard might attempt to use the apparent opening to deliver one of their close spells.

 

[Nagol]

In this particular case if the fighter makes successful Will attacks against them I would most likely have them attempt to restrain the blood crazed fighter who is trying to kill them or if appropriate they might cling to the fighter and beg for mercy. Come and Get It doesn't stipulate what it's victims must do once they get within range. I generally start with trying to consider if I can come up with a justification that works. For instance, a wizard might attempt to use the apparent opening to deliver one of their close spells.

Technically, the opponents can't do anything once they get in range until their turn. Should any of the pacifists live that long they may try to cling to the killing machine and beg for mercy, I suppose. The wizard may decide to use a touch or close spell if he even has one, but he isn't casting yet.

 

[Ratskinner]

So you can't conceive of a character motivation or situation that would prevent a rational being from charging forward and engaging in melee?

Sure, but that's why its an attack vs. Will. It doesn't bother me any more than a 1e monster failing a morale check and fleeing even when it has a rational reason to fight on. (Now maybe it should be Cha vs Will, but that's getting a bit quibbly, ATC.)

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

There are things that would prevent it from happening as specified in the rules. However, Yes, because someone trained in melee can very well learn ways of making this happen...just like some trained in magic can learn ways of making fireball happen...sure.

I mean, I've seen people argue that HP are a wonderful Old School tool for modeling a fighter's pure awesome as he wades through lava that he fell into from orbit. If that is somehow okay and associative, and a little combat trick that you can observe people performing and training for IRL is not-okay and dissociative...then I suggest the problem actually lies elsewhere. (It may still be a problem for some player preferences.)

 

[pemerton]

The first case is that being a cleric gives you a special ability to communicate with the gods that a fighter has no training in.

What does this mean, in the gameworld? What is a "special ability to communicate with the gods" that is acquired by training? How does it sit alongside Gygax's repeated descriptions, in his DMG, of hit points as being a marker of supernatural and divine assistance?

a melee attack is quicker than archery as a property of the gameworld.

Except that in various circumstances, archery is quicker than melee attacks (eg if the two combatants are separated by more than 5', and the archer wins initiative).

I mean, you can read all this action economy stuff back into the gameworld if you want (including stop-motion movement, peasant rail guns, skilled combatants moving their weapon literally once per 6 seconds, etc) - but then you can read the encounter and daily power limitations back into the gameworld, too, and the upshot won't be any more absurd.