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

[Manbearcat]

Easier to adjudicate than that though using the rules. The hinges are small tiny metal therefore have 15 hp. Hit the AC 8 10 and if you do 15 hp, the hinge is slag.

Well, the RAW Damage to Objects rules assume they're destroyed and/or rendered useless.

Rules Compendium page 176 among other sources

An object reduced to 0 hit points is destroyed or otherwise rendered useless. At the DM’s discretion, the object might remain more or less whole, but its functionality is ruined—a door knocked from its hinges or a clockwork mechanism broken internally, for instance.

I suppose if you want to extend the rules of taking NPCs to 0 HP (eg you can make them unconscious rather than dead/destroyed) to objects and then negotiate the potential of their new state on their environment (process-like) and its derivative effect (eg door is welded shut and impassable - save ends), you could absolutely run it that way.

I wouldn't see a problem with that. Its just not the classical way to do it in 4e, but it certainly gives folks who are after process a way to handle things. If I was after process, I would make them roll an Arcana (for process purposes) as well to control the flames and get the temperature high enough to produce the results. The default temps of something like Burning Hands (process-wise) would be insufficient to weld/fuse.

EDIT - I typed balance, I meant process.

 

[Savage Wombat]

3rd demand for Caster Supremacy noted.

If he were "demanding caster supremacy" he'd say "I want wizards to be better than fighters." Don't put words in other people's mouths.

If you want to argue that his position leads to Caster Supremacy, make the argument.

 

[Nagol]

Well, the RAW Damage to Objects rules assume they're destroyed and/or rendered useless.



I suppose if you want to extend the rules of taking NPCs to 0 HP (eg you can make them unconscious rather than dead/destroyed) to objects and then negotiate the potential of their new state on their environment (process-like) and its derivative effect (eg door is welded shut and impassable - save ends), you could absolutely run it that way.

I wouldn't see a problem with that. Its just not the classical way to do it in 4e, but it certainly gives folks who are after process a way to handle things. If I was after process, I would make them roll an Arcana (for balance purposes) as well to control the flames and get the temperature high enough to produce the results.

You are rendering the object useless -- the hinge doesn't work any more; therefore it won't lever the door. You haven't destroyed the door that would take WAY more power (a lot more hp). If the critters in question can shift the vault door without it being on hinges, I suspect any form of spot welding would be toast anyway; those things are heavy.

 

[Manbearcat]

You are rendering the object useless -- the hinge doesn't work any more; therefore it won't lever the door. You haven't destroyed the door that would take WAY more power (a lot more hp). If the critters in question can shift the vault door without it being on hinges, I suspect any form of spot welding would be toast anyway; those things are heavy.

I agree that, from a process-perspective, it is very likely not tenable. From a process simulation perspective, I think the "destroyed" tag and the "just friggin hinges" tag is probably at least a bit adversarial to an interpretation of "but can serve as a means for welding the door shut in a few short moments of Burning Hands application." Perhaps if you passed an Arcana check that would let Burning Hands instantaneously achieve the temps required for nuclear fusion, the "destroyed" and "just friggin hinges" tags would be rendered obsolete.

Interestingly enough, this could be a 5e thread! I think we've inadvertently stumbled upon the reason why process-based rulings (!) not exception-based, abstract rules are problematic at the table!

 

[Derren]

Preference for a "rules say how a thing acts" paradigm rather than "rules say what the outcome is" paradigm is essentially a preference for negotiation and personal world models determining outcomes rather than the rules. There is nothing essentially wrong with that, but let's be clear what it is. This feeds straight back to what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was saying about engaging the rules being playing the game rather than engaging the rules being an (optional) addendum to playing the game. If the real determinant of outcome is discussion and negotiation then rules are really rather secondary.

I disagree that in this case the rules become secondary, they just focus on different aspects of the game.
Instead of detailing the outcomes, stun for 1 round, move an enemy 2 squares and so on, the rules describe the tools. Make someone hallucinate for 6 seconds, make yourself look more imposing, etc. In the latter case some guidelines about what results actions can have in the world are also required, but you would not have a "If X Y happens" or even "You can do Y, no matter the X" relation. Instead you have "You can do Y which might result in X or Z or something else depending on the situation".

 

[Nagol]

I agree that, from a process-perspective, it is very likely not tenable. From a process simulation perspective, I think the "destroyed" tag and the "just friggin hinges" tag is probably at least a bit adversarial to an interpretation of "but can serve as a means for welding the door shut in a few short moments of Burning Hands application." Perhaps if you passed an Arcana check that would let Burning Hands instantaneously achieve the temps required for nuclear fusion, the "destroyed" and "just friggin hinges" tags would be rendered obsolete.

Interestingly enough, this could be a 5e thread! I think we've inadvertently stumbled upon the reason why process-based rulings (!) not exception-based, abstract rules are problematic at the table!

You... getting all realistic at me!

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.

 

[Kraztur]

Interestingly enough, this could be a 5e thread! I think we've inadvertently stumbled upon the reason why process-based rulings (!) not exception-based, abstract rules are problematic at the table!

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.

 

[Remathilis]

Demand for caster supremacy noted.

Waitaminit. 2nd demand for Caster Supremacy aside,

3rd demand for Caster Supremacy noted.

I've been a rogue player for decades (my user name is my favorite thief PC). I've NEVER liked that magic could usurp rogue skills cheaply and more effectively. I've always hated a wizard with knock and invisibility makes a chump of a rogue. DO NOT accuse me of caster-supremacy.

That said, 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.

I don't want my fighters mind-controlling the NPC orcs anymore than I want the wizard casting knock on every door he sees. There has to be a way to balance martial and magical better than "give fighters magic-like stuff".

 

[Umbran]

I don't want my fighters mind-controlling the NPC orcs anymore than I want the wizard casting knock on every door he sees. There has to be a way to balance martial and magical better than "give fighters magic-like stuff".

Broadly speaking, your'e talking about a game where magical stuff that goes up to Wish. Anything a martial character can do that gets anywhere near the power of Wish is going to read as magic, if your baseline for non-magic is the real world.

If your baseline for non-magic is action movies, then maybe we can talk.

 

[Remathilis]

Broadly speaking, your'e talking about a game where magical stuff that goes up to Wish. Anything a martial character can do that gets anywhere near the power of Wish is going to read as magic, if your baseline for non-magic is the real world.

If your baseline for non-magic is action movies, then maybe we can talk.

As I've said before, I'm actually kinda lenient. Action Surge? Sure, I'll buy it. Second Wind. Works for me. CaGI is when my disbelief gives out.