Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Nemesis Destiny]

"Dungeon Master, why did you tell us our magical Fireball didn't set the orc's stockade on fire because the Fireball spell only affects enemies, but now when we cast it in a confined space, you have it ignite everything around us, choking and killing us?"

In AD&D, this question doesn't come up because the Fireball spell explicitly states that it can set non-living matter on fire (subject to item saving throws). Famously, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief described the giant's wooden hall as too damp to able to set on fire easily (though still possible) to prevent this tactic.

Yes, the old fireball states that it CAN set objects on fire, but as ALWAYS, this was subject to DM fiat, even in AD&D, and I might add ESPECIALLY in AD&D. DMs in AD&D are by no means obligated to have things catch on fire, nothing has changed in that regard. The game still occasionally suffers from bad DM judgment, just like it always has. It is something that we as gamers must occasionally deal with.

Do I now have to spend another 5 pages of back and forth explaining why this is so? I think it would be easier if you were to just review the thread. It's already been covered.

 

[Tovec]

Late to the party, so I appologise if this has been brought up. I'm still trying to catch up, by a rate of a full page of replies in like an hour it might take me a bit to reach even THIS post.

Did you have the same reaction in 3e with Extraordinary abilities? Because Ex abilities are exactly the same as Martial powers. They are not inherently magical (can't be dispelled, work in an anti-magic zone) but they are certainly not normal either.

Except that fighters, the quintessential martial class, don't really get Extraordinary abilities either. They get feats. We can get into the metagamyness of feats later.

I treat Martial powers in the same way. Ex abilities allowed my monk to effectively Feather Fall, dodge fireballs, be immune to diseases, and actually granted me spell resistance and speak to any living creature. Somehow my training as a monk, completely non magical, renders me immune to magic and allows me to automatically communicate with anything in the universe.

These examples are all from monk, an odd example for a martial class as 4e made them psionic (iirc). Also, all those abilities are defensive in nature, not meant to hurt the enemy but meant to protect from a variety of weaknesses.

I've never really gotten why people have such a difficult time swallowing a fighter having powers and yet never, ever complained about, say, a monk, doing the exact same thing.

Monks are weaker, in general. In 4E they aren't drawing from the same power source. In 3.5 they are but people don't have such a difficult time swallowing their powers.

And Essentials has provided at least the option to have martial classes without the Vancian mechanic.

Essentials = 4.5 right? So a bit of a fix, not included in the standard "core" 4.0 material. I do happen to agree with you in general though.

It really is remarkable how much 4E turned out to be a study an example of the oddities of human psychology. There are a lot of people who, from what I can tell, dislike 4E largely because of the format, presentation and choice of words, and not because of the way it plays. That said, a lot of this is because many people did not appear to read the core material cover to cover, as with the "Fireball isn't really fire" comment.

Never had to read the previous edition's book Cover to Cover in order to get a good handle on the rules. Never had to read it cover to cover in order to find things foolish, or to find them just. Just saying.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Yes, the old fireball states that it CAN set objects on fire, but as ALWAYS, this was subject to DM fiat, even in AD&D, and I might add ESPECIALLY in AD&D. DMs in AD&D are by no means obligated to have things catch on fire, nothing has changed in that regard. The game still occasionally suffers from bad DM judgment, just like it always has. It is something that we as gamers must occasionally deal with.

Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected.
​

Where is the DM's fiat in this rules passage?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The same place it is in your post upthread citing an example from Steading of the Hill Giant Chief - firmly in the DM's hands. Items burn - unless the DM says otherwise (based on circumstances, or fiat). The same thing still applies today. You even find the same philosophy in your own signature - you know, the one that tells you not to get so worked up in the "textbook rules material."

Also, you've misquoted the spell description, unless you are going from a different source than I am (2e PHB).

And neglected to mention this from the 2e DMG:

"Not all items need make a save in every instance."

It goes on to give an example of a situation in which a DM may simply not require item saves or inflict damage on tiems. Again, judgment call.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Vecna is a wizard; that does not mean that all wizards get to be Vecna.

The head of Vecna not withstanding of course.

 

[Gentlegamer]

The same place it is in your post upthread citing an example from Steading of the Hill Giant Chief - firmly in the DM's hands. Items burn - unless the DM says otherwise (based on circumstances, or fiat).

The Steading is in a nasty damp area, where hard rain is a daily occurance and wet fogs a nightly event. All wood in the place is very damp. (Normal fires will only have a 2% chance per round of burning or setting the place afire, and even magical fires will have only an 8% chance per round of the same.) If the party should manage to set the upper works of the Steading aflame, they will be forced to wait a week before trying to discover a way into the lower (dungeon) level, for hot embers will prevent entry before this period of time. Note also that ALL loot from the upper works will be lost in such a fire, but that all giants from location 11 of the upper level will escape to safety in the lower level, going to location 26.​

Where is the DM's fiat in this passage?

Also, you've misquoted the spell description, unless you are going from a different source than I am (2e PHB).

I am. AD&D Players Handbook (1978), page 73.

And neglected to mention this from the 2e DMG:
It goes on to give an example of a situation in which a DM may simply not require item saves or inflict damage on tiems. Again, judgment call.

It's talking about items carried by a character, which is the same in first edition AD&D. At any rate, my example isn't about characters' equipment but the environmental collateral effects of the magical fire produced by a Fireball spell. AD&D (both editions) give clear guidelines about the properties of this magical fire, one that DMs and players alike form expectations and take actions on. In short, magical fire acts like real world fire (it burns stuff, including stuff you don't want it to), something players can apply their own experiences to during play. There's no DM's fiat (or as some might read it arbitrariness) in how (magical) fire affects the environment. It's 'realistic.'

 

[JamesonCourage]

So yes, I guess the more correct sentence would be "When you can change something at will while always getting the same result it doesn't matter"

Your clarification makes much more sense. I still think it's probably flawed, but see not real reason to have a debate over it. Thanks for clarifying for me. As always, play what you like

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Where is the DM's fiat in this passage?

Short answer? Wherever (s)he wants it to be. See your sig. Fudging dice, "forgetting" to roll. In AD&D terms all rules were just guidelines and this is spelled out over and over in all the material that I read on it.

Besides, if it was a homebrew (as things often were), as a DM, you'd be constantly called upon to make judgments, because there is no way you could think of every possible angle a player might take with their powers/abilities/spells/items. That will require fiat.

I know. I've been there. I am very familiar with AD&D (mostly 2e, since that is when I began DMing).

I am. AD&D Players Handbook (1978), page 73.

That explains it then. My stuff older than 2e is put away in a box. It's interesting in that in the 2e version, the word 'must' was changed. I wonder why...?

It's talking about items carried by a character, which is the same in first edition AD&D. At any rate, my example isn't about characters' equipment but the environmental collateral effects of the magical fire produced by a Fireball spell. AD&D (both editions) give clear guidelines about the properties of this magical fire, one that DMs and players alike form expectations and take actions on. In short, magical fire acts like real world fire (it burns stuff, including stuff you don't want it to), something players can apply their own experiences to during play. There's no DM's fiat (or as some might read it arbitrariness) in how (magical) fire affects the environment. It's 'realistic.'

It's still up to the DM to decide to actually roll those dice and/or make those calls. They were just guidelines after all. And when dealing with a lot of situations, things aren't always spelled out. There is and was always plenty of room for fiat.

I know full well that effects were spelled out in detail in AD&D, and 3.x, but I guess rather than give guidelines, 4e expects groups/DMs to apply common sense, or whatever level of "realism" they're comfortable with. It's not a stretch to know that fire burns, ice freezes, wind can blow out torches, and the like.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Short answer? Wherever (s)he wants it to be. See your sig. Fudging dice, "f
That explains it then. My stuff older than 2e is put away in a box. It's interesting in that in the 2e version, the word 'must' was changed. I wonder why...?

1e
Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered unaffected.

2e
Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball melts soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Exposed items require saving throws vs. magical fire to determine if they are affected, but items in possession of a creature that rolls a successful saving throw are unaffected by the fireball.
​

"must" vs. "require" looks the same to me

 

[rounser]

Going to take a lot more than a "nod" to realism, IMO.

Place maintenance of suspension of disbelief and "simulation" on a similar footing to the pedestal on which game balance has been placed, or see people walk away again, I'd say. Even after the huge backlash against uncompromising gamism in 4E, simulation and fidelity to genre only warrants a "nod"?