Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Imaro]

Those "rules" seem to have about as much weight as the flavour text for Spinning Sweep.

No, I would argue the rules for the fireball spell + the rules for damaging objects have alot more weight than "the flavour text for Spinning Sweep"...

Do those rules tell me how much damage an object takes while burning?

1d6 per caster level. Once it has taken this damage it is no longer burning.

How about how fast the fire spreads?

Who said the fire was strong enough or lasted long enough to spread? The magic creates the fire and the magic's duration is instantaneous. The fire lasting longer than an instantaneous burst is not part of the description for the spell... so it lasts as long as it takes for the objects to suffer 1d6 per caster level of fire damage.

What's needed to put out the fire? How long something will burn?

The fire in this spell only lasts long enough to do 1d6 per caster level of damage (again th duration of the spell and thus the magic fire it creates is instantaneous). The rules for damaging objects allow one to determine what did and did not survive the burst of fire damage that the flames of this spell were able to produce.

What I see, if those rules are applied, is that combustibles will catch fire and, if not destroyed by the initial damage, burn forever like the cast-aside ironwood staff.

This is because instead of actually following the rules in the spell and for damaging objects (which will let you determine what objects were destroyed in the fire, and what objects were only singed or suffered minimal damage)... you've ignored some things and added your own interpretation/rules to it... then wonder why it doesn't make sense.

Nowhere does it say the fire lasts forever or that once ignited the combustibles stay lit. Just follow the rules for the spell and damaging objects (which even has specific rules for fire) and it works out.

See LS, I think you're missing the bigger picture. The fact of the mattter is that whether you like or don't like the way fireball in 3.5 interacts with objects... it's accounted for, made apparent to the player when he chooses fireball, and consistent in the rules. The interaction of a fireball with objects in 4e, on the other hand, isn't consistent, isn't accounted for in the rules, and even whether it's up to the DM or up to the player's requesting it from the DM is in the air between people who play the game.

 

[Imaro]

Hang on. Didn't you just finish telling me that 4e doesn't empower DM's?

Yet, "it only burns things when and where the DM wants it to in 4e. So it's not a player decision, or a group decision or a table decision... it's a DM decision pure and simple."

Color me confused here. If that isn't DM empowerment in your mind, what is?

If you'd followed the thread you would have seen that I, along with Balesir and a few others don't necessarily ascribe to that particular interpretation... but since 4e has made it so vague and unclear...I have to be willing to accept that said interpretation may be true. Though I and others don't necessatrily believe it to be so. So yeah, color me confused as well... but by 4e's poor wording.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Tovec View Post
I prefer my game world to be more simulationist. I know around here that somehow seems to be taboo but I do like when the game I'm using tells me how things work. If I want to change things, in either game, I can but that isn't the point. It isn't about flavour it is about crunch. One edition tells you how something should be handled, the other purposely leaves it up to DM's discretion. Am I wrong?

I'm not sure you actually are characterizing your tastes correctly. What you want is the game designers to tell you how the simulation works. The designers say that when Action A occurs, it will be resolved in this manner every single time. When you try to pick a lock, for example, in 3.5, you will use some sort of tool (taking penalties if the tools are jury rigged), it will take a certain amount of time, and you can retry as long as you want (thus taking 20, presuming you have time).

And this is how Open Locks works every single time. Now, how about a puzzle lock, like a Chinese Puzzle Box? What skill do I roll to open that? Open Lock or Disable Device? I can see an argument for either way.

Now, in 4e, it's left up to the DM's discretion. You can open a lock in any manner that the DM accepts. If you Fonzie Bump the lock, and the DM is happy, then groovy, you're just opened the lock. The rules expect you to make some effort towards doing just that. There's no compelling reason why you even have to use Thievery to open a lock, although that would be the baseline assumption. I could easily see a Wizard using Cantrip in conjunction with Arcana to open a lock as well.

Other DM's might not. And that's groovy. There's nothing saying that the DM must always say yes, although, again, that tends to be the baseline advice. But, there's certainly nothing stopping the DM from saying no. I could see a Martial Only campaign, doing a nice Sword and Sorcery 4e game, where that sort of thing just would not fly at all.

In other words, because the mechanics are not lockstep tied to the flavor, you can apply different mechanics to an action without having to start jumping through all sorts of hoops. Yes, you could do the same thing in 3e, but, it was never encouraged to the degree that it is in 4e. If you want to do X, in 3e, you have to do Y. That's the formula. Departing from the formula is certainly not verbotten, of course, but, it's also not encouraged very much either.

 

[Imaro]

If played in the true spirit of 4E whether or not anything catches fire should NOT be the narrative control of the DM but should be the narrative control of whoever cast the spell. (With DM authority to trump if, but only if, absolutely needed)

You've hit the crux on the head for me, and it's one of the biggest problems for me when discussing 4e with many of it's fans... even they seem divisive and at odds about what playstyle 4e is trying to support... though again and again it is lauded as a very focused and tight game.

The only thing that players of 4e (and this includes me as well) seem capable of agreeing on is that it has a large dose of highly developed tactical skirmish play in it. Otherwise one can get dizzy trying to keep up with all the different ways that 4e is purported to inherently support different (and often at odds) styles, empowerment, etc.

 

[Imaro]

Since you are the one alluding to all these descriptive maneuvers that exist for non-spellcasting classes, then why don't you give an example? You specifically mentioned a non-descriptive maneuver, and I showed at least 5 examples of how 4e had made that exact same maneuver into a descriptive one, which was exactly my original point.

If all you wanted to prove was that 4e has printed five different ways to say "I knock him prone"... then you win. Sorry I missed your point earlier.

 

[Mallus]

re: 4e's Fireball...

... actually, I thought it was a little odd, too... at first... until I thought about it more.

Why, exactly, should a fireball spell function like an incendiary grenade or mortal shell? Other than it kinda used to in early editions?

Why shouldn't the magician have control over what burns and/or ignites inside the area of effect. Or even if it does lethal or non-lethal damage?

It's magic, for Crom's sake. There's no logical reason for it to behave one way or the other.

Now you can make an argument for more incendiary grenade-like fireballs in gamist terms; they are more tactically-challenging to use, the user has to take into account collateral damage, etc. But this has nothing to do with logic or simulationalism or whatever.

 

[Imaro]

re: 4e's Fireball...

... actually, I thought it was a little odd, too... at first... until I thought about it more.

Why, exactly, should a fireball spell function like an incendiary grenade or mortal shell? Other than it kinda used to in early editions?

Why shouldn't the magician have control over what burns and/or ignites inside the area of effect. Or even if it does lethal or non-lethal damage?

It's magic, for Crom's sake. There's no logical reason for it to behave one way or the other.

Now you can make an argument for more incendiary grenade-like fireballs in gamist terms; they are more tactically-challenging to use, the user has to take into account collateral damage, etc. But this has nothing to do with logic or simulationalism or whatever.

...And now we are back to the position that it is controlled by PC's... only the DM still has to okay or not okay it.

My problem is mainly the lack of consistency concerning the 4e approach. First...that it's still unclear who controls whether the spell effects objects or not... and even if it is the player, they still need DM permission so it's not under the casters control, or entirely under the DM's control.

Second that no matter who does the controlling it's inconsistent in that the spell sometimes damages objects and sometimes doesn't dependant upon someone's (DM's... Player's) whim.

OAN: as I stated above, IMO, this is done purely for gamist/balance reasons, not narrative, since a general rule of powers being able to target objects would lead to the whacking of chairs and boulders to generate effects. While listing it seperately in powers that don't have effects could later on lead to some broken combo or issues with eratta.

 

[Derren]

this is done purely for gamist/balance reasons, not narrative,

Another example for this would be Bahamuts human form.
In his human form he is accompanied by 7 gold dragons (named ones, so real creatures who can act independently, not summons). But as fighting Bahamut and 7 gold dragons in the same encounter would be unbalanced, Bahamut instead uses the gold dragons as ammunition to fuel his powers. And in combat they still behave like summons and not as independant creatures they are and are vastly weaker than real gold dragons.

Area Burst Gold Dragon Rescue (standard; uses one canary)
Area burst 1 within 30, centered on ally; +41 vs. AC; the target is stunned (save ends). Effect: The ally in the origin square gains fly 10 until the end of its next turn.

Ranged Summon Gold Dragon (standard; uses one canary) Summoning
Ranged 20; Bahamut summons a Large gold dragon in an unoccupied space within range. The dragon has speed 8, fly 10 (hover) and, unlike a typical summoned creature, has its own defenses and hit points (all defenses 34; hp 120).
Minor Action: +27 vs. AC; 1d12 + 10 damage.
Opportunity Attack: +27 vs. AC; 1d12 + 10 damage.

All in the name of balance.

 

[Mallus]

My problem is mainly the lack of consistency concerning the 4e approach. First...that it's still unclear who controls whether the spell effects objects or not... and even if it is the player, they still need DM permission so it's not under the casters control, or entirely under the DM's control.

I'm running AD&D right now, and in some ways, it's not so different. It's up to the DM to decide to what extent a fireball damages objects/ignites them. Sure, there's an item saving throw table, if the DM chooses to use it, for some or all objects caught in the area of effect. There might be rules for room combustibility, AD&D having a lot of rules , but most are really more like suggestions.

I've seen DMs call for item saves against all of a PC's gear, only some, only if the PC fails their saves, independent of the PC's save, and so on. This could produce some odd results, like a PC saving against a fireball and being more-or-less okay, even though his sword, armor, and gold melted into slag while he was wearing it (should that necessitate another save vs. wearing molten metal? Hmmm...).

A lack of consistency we have always had with us.

Second that no matter who does the controlling it's inconsistent in that the spell sometimes damages objects and sometimes doesn't dependant upon someone's (DM's... Player's) whim.

Let's assume the player has control for now...

What is "inconsistent" about a wizard having control over their own spell such that they can decide what objects, if any, are damaged by it?
Or, like I originally posted, why does a fireball have to behave like an incendiary grenade?

Being able to select targets and effects != inconsistent.

 

[LurkAway]

What is "inconsistent" about a wizard having control over their own spell such that they can decide what objects, if any, are damaged by it? Or, like I originally posted, why does a fireball have to behave like an incendiary grenade?

Two words: Reference point. Like cold and lava and everything else, it's easier by default to assume that fire produced by magic is still fire and acts like fire (because it's the default reference point for everyone, because nobody has a reference point for what is the behavior of magical fire -- a good author/storyteller will 'sell' you on a vision of how and why magical fire should be different than normal fire, but it is a challenge to persuade from the default reference point)