Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

[BraveSirRobin]

What additional justification is required past what's in the rules? Per the rules, a "miss" just means no damage. I don't recall "miss" being defined as "nothing but air".

In the 3.5 PHB, it says "Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for your opponent to land a solid, damaging blow on you." Not just any blow, but a solid, damaging one.

So a hit against someone in full plate means that you broke through their armor and caused them damage? And yet their armor still is just as effective as ever?

 

[hong]

It might be more accurate to characterise Dragon as adding more _detail_ to D&D, as opposed to more realism. This continues even to this day.

 

[hong]

So a hit against someone in full plate means that you broke through their armor and caused them damage? And yet their armor still is just as effective as ever?

This holds to the exact same extent in 4E as it did in 3E, 2E and in fact every version of (A)D&D.

 

[hexgrid]

At least until they've blown their wad of dailies... and then they're out of luck until the PCs sleep on it. Why then, should the ability to take narrative control be based on the ability to sleep it off? Why not have it be a resource based on the game session? Or the character's level? Or some other mechanic of stored-up hero points?

I agree that basing it on any number things besides "daily" could work just as well. They all raise the same sorts of questions, which all have the same answer.

Why should the ability to take "narrative control" be granted only to martial exploters and not controllers who use completely different (and splashier) magical effects for their dailies and not just making use of some fantastical opportunity to cause harm to the target?

I don't think it should. But obviously, if there's already an in-game reason, you don't need an out-of-game reason.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

I've been playing since 1979, and my dad had photocopies of all of the original booklets in the house before then (which I pored over, even if I didn't have anyone to play with at first), and your memories don't match mine, either.

I think it's a little much to accuse others of revisionist history, based on your declarations of what sort of content predominated in the first 15 years of The Dragon.

I have been playing since 1980 and my memories match yours. I don't ever remember a goal of realism from D&D nor did we want one. There certainly may have been group that tried to insert more realism based on personal preferance but that certainly didn't seem like an object for the overall RAW. And before anyone puts me in the 4e camp, I have yet to even buy any books and only have managed to flip through the first 20 pages of the PHB.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If your suspension of disbelief was destroyed by per day abilities then God only knows what hit points, character classes, levels and alignments did to it.

D&D's key core rules have always put playability above realism. When the game moves away from that, 1st edition's weapon vs AC modifiers for example, then it tends to suck.

 

[Fifth Element]

So a hit against someone in full plate means that you broke through their armor and caused them damage? And yet their armor still is just as effective as ever?

Sure, why not? Abstraction and all that. I know some have desired to add armour damage systems into the game, and I think some games do incorporate such a thing, but I don't think such bookkeeping is appropriate for core D&D.

Or, you could say the blow found the weak point in the armour (a joint where the plates do not cover the wearer entirely), rather than actually punching through the armour itself.

The description is limited only by your imagination.

 

[chriton227]

To be fair, daily powers in 4e aren't worse than daily powers in 3e or Pathfinder.

And hey, I am not saying daily power aren't good for beer&pretzel rollplaying. But for us other players, weho might want some immersion, it hurts verisimilitude really bad.

Over the last several weeks, I've seen a lot of people complaining about this or that aspect of 4e not fitting their personal preferences or campaign style, and saying that is a problem with 4e. 4e, just like 3.x, GURPS, HERO, and all other RPG systems, is nothing but a set of tools to assist in playing and adjudicating a game. Not all tools are alike, nor do they excel at the same thing. As a programmer, the languages I use are tools. JavaScript isn't the best tool to create a relational database, and assembler isn't the best tool to create a web page. Just like a chainsaw isn't the best tool for modifying a mini, and a Dremel isn't the best tool for cutting down a tree. If I tried to cut a tree down with a Dremel, it wouldn't be the tool's fault for not doing it very well, it would be my fault for selecting the wrong tool for the job. The same applies for RPGs. Don't blame the system because it doesn't do a good job with something it wasn't designed for, instead select the right tool for the job. I can't blame Aftermath for doing a poor job with a cinematic anime game, it would be my fault for choosing the wrong system.

Wouldn't it be a better use of time and energy to search for or create a game system that does what you want it to do rather than railing against a particular system for not doing what you want? Is there some odd pleasure derived from shouting to the world that hammering a square peg into a round hole is ugly business?

 

[billd91]

Wouldn't it be a better use of time and energy to search for or create a game system that does what you want it to do rather than railing against a particular system for not doing what you want? Is there some odd pleasure derived from shouting to the world that hammering a square peg into a round hole is ugly business?

Maybe, but if D&D used to do what you want and now doesn't, I can understand a little venting of the spleen.

 

[Rechan]

Maybe, but if D&D used to do what you want and now doesn't, I can understand a little venting of the spleen.

If it used to do what you want, then use what used to work. If it's that important to you.