D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been MIA for a wee bit so I apologize for chasing this thread's tail in advance.

As I understand it, this is @Manbearcat 's point in this and the other thread - to build your PC with this power is to build a PC who will play as valiant, provided you actually want to use your PC as statted up.

No, you don't get it. I've never banned a 4e PC taking powers for this reason (or any other reason - though I have nerfed Moment of Glory). It never comes up, because nearly all players act in good faith to play the PC they've chosen to play. There is no mechanical advantage in 4e to being a passive aggressive jerk and choosing "You are brave" powers then acting cowardly while whining about protagonism, so even pawn-stance players don't do this.

Whereas with 4e the powers mechanically support the thematics of the class. There is no incentive to playing against type - your cowardy self-serving paladin with Virtue of Valour will be mechanically weaker than a paladin played according to the thematics of his powers. Same for Rogues etc.

Precisely and amen to both of these. If you want an exercise in masochism and you accordingly build a PC that is thematically incoherent with how you plan to actualize him and tactically adversarial to how you plan on playing him...then by all means...have it. However, I don't know what point that proves about the ruleset. I do, however, suspect that it likely will earn you some cross looks (again, unless you all are just having a laugh) at the table from your fellow players and GM.


I've had at least 6-8 players at various times, both in person and in forums like this one, state that "Your class doesn't matter, it's just a collection of combat powers, pick the one that you think makes you fight the way you want." Yet Manbearcat and permerton are discussing 4e classes (and their associated powers) as being part and parcel with a "thematic archetype," something which allows players to build on a very specific kind of narrative play.

Because you want a power that will help you in case you are surrounded... I'm asking these questions because my thoughts are along the same lines as innerdude. I have had a ton of 4e fans claim that the classes, powers, etc. are basically generic because they are effect based. Yet there is another contingent of 4e fans who claim there are thematic elements tightly tied to the classes, powers, etc. Well I'm curious to find out if these thematic elements are inherent to the game or more based upon dm/player agreement to a certain style, "being on the same page" with a group, etc.

That is why I am discussing valiant strike, and the paladin class... do either really push my character to act a certain way... or is being valiant just the thematic element that some choose to enact when selecting the power.

Before I continue, one thing I will say is that I keep seeing two schools of thought asserting part orthogonal, part countervailing (but all excluded middle) theses:

1 - If you have a default setting/setup (in this case theme), it is not hard-coded, but it is implied (by the mere nature of having a default setting within a ruleset, perhaps by the designers, perhaps by the gaming culture at large) that there can be no deviation from that orthodoxy. That seems to manifest a lot in varying topics but has really grown legs as folks are terribly concerned about what is going to be "Core" in 5e. I also see this used as an attack on 4e.

2 - All orthodoxies and defaults must be rigid and unmalleable (definitionally). Therefore, if there is a presumed orthodoxy or default yet it is not absolutely rigid and malleable, then it ceases to be what it claims to be; orthodoxy or default. This doesn't seem to be an attack; but something of a critique of 4e that is happening now.

I don't agree with either of those positions and certainly don't agree with them with regards to 4e. 4e does have some classes with considerably greater thematic robustness, depth, rigidity hard-coded into them. Deviation from that default orthodoxy is difficult (but doable). Those are typically the Divine and Primal classes; Paladin, Avenger, Invoker, Barbarian, Druid, Shaman (however, the Warlord can probably be placed here as well). There is a lot of loaded thematics built into those classes. However, occupying the same space is the Fighter, the Rogue, the Ranger, the Sorceror. There are loaded thematics built into those classes, but there is considerably greater archetype malleability within. There are orthodoxies and defaults. They do exist and are clear and present (as below) by penetration of the classes mechanics and associated fiction. However, deviation does persist...and it doesn't persist because the associated fluff/fiction is non-existant or ultimately meaningless...it persists because there is not perfect rigidity in the built-in thematic orthodox...there is design space for shaping...and that shaping is most often a willful, organized act.

So lets get back to the question at hand. Are there thematics tightly tied into some classes; eg. is there an orthodox setup and how does 4e's mechanics distill/promote this setup from the primordial ooze of all possible setups?

Personally, in today's popular culture, when I think of Captain America when I think of the prototypical Paladin. Yes, there are some contextual and color differences, but I'll follow Thomas Jefferson's lead here and expect that a paladin will reflect the times. Consider his thematic role in the recent Avengers movie; his oath is 'god and country', his armor is his shield, and power source is supernatural (super soldier serum) but his true source is his inherent courage, devotion to cause and sacrifice. Take the following "classic" Paladin or knightly virtues/ideals:

- Unyieldingly pursue and destroy evil (especially supernatural evil) whereever you may find it.
- Be stout of form, heart, and mind.
- Be ever vigil.
- T
he shame of dishonor before your god/cause or failure in your oath ceaselessly drives your pursuit of honor.
- Your faith/oath bulwarks your courage.
- Self-sacrifice over self-interest.
- May your faith and your armor protect you, and if not, die unflinchingly for your noble cause.
- Protect all under your charge and those who cannot defend themselves.
- Lead from the front.
- Be a steadfast example and inspire those who have lost hope.
- Be a man of action.



Now. Let us take a close look at the features and powers fundamental to the Paladin class and determine how they will turn out in play (This thread appears to have topically merged with the other thread so I'm going to take a crack at a different class/theme - Swashbuckler - and take a look at how a real PC has manifested in my game...but that is for the other thread). We have:

Primary Attributes: Strength, Charisma, Wisdom.
HPs and Healing Surges:
Top tier HPs and Healing Surges.
Proficiencies:
All armor and shields. Military melee and simple ranged.
Bonuses to Defenses: All.
Implements:
Holy Symbol.
Primary Keywords associated with Powers: Divine, Healing, Implement, Radiant, Weapon, Zone.
Primary Range of Attacks: Melee 1 or Close Burst.
Skills: Religion as default and Diplomacy, Endurance, Heal, History, Insight, Intimidate.

Contextually, before even talking about specific effects of powers, on that alone, what picture does this paint as a default/orthodox setup? What play is the aggregation of these mechanics expected to produce and incentivize? Stout of physical form and of heart, indomitable and willful, perceptive, socially keen/savvy/understanding, leads from the front, driven by faith, man of action, calls forth the power of his god and fights where he stands, mends the afflicted.


Now. Lets take a very default power/feature layout through level 6.

Channel Divinity (Holy Smite): Your weapon fills with divine radiant energy, which bursts forth as you strike your enemy. That driven by faith thing? That physically manifests as a gift from your God throught the conduit of your indomitable will and powerful, virtuous presence.

Divine Challenge: You boldly confront a nearby enemy, searing it with divine light if it ignores your challenge. You're leading from the front. You're a man of action, stout of form, heart and mind. You interpose your will and yourself between your enemies and your allies.

Lay on Hands: Your divine touch instantly heals wounds. You give up your own life essence (Healing Surges) to ease the ailments and mend the wounds of the afflicted.

Valiant Strike:
You attack a foe, gaining strength from your conviction as the odds against you rise. As your foes mount against you, your stout heart, indomitable will, and skill-at-arms is bulwarked further by your faith.

Bolstering Strike: You attack your foe without mercy or reprieve, and your accuracy is rewarded with a divine gift of vigor. Remember that aspect of HPs that Gygax referred to as divine intervention? Well, you actually have this, on call when you use this power.

Radiant Smite: Your weapon glows with a pearly luminescence. Enemies shrink from its pure light, especially creatures of supernatural evil such as demons, devils and undead. Big weapon attack that channels, divine, radiant fury into your foe? Who are your sworn enemies? Are they vulnerable to this? Yes, they are.

Glorious Charge:
You wade into battle and urge your allies to greater heights. You charge into the midst of your foes. Your allies that behold you are inspired by mettle and sacrifice (they gain HPs).

Martyr’s Blessing:
You step into an attack made against an adjacent ally to save your comrade. CB1 Immediate Reaction. You're hit instead of your ally. Lead from the Front. Sacrifice.

Strength from Valor:
As foes encircle you, you fight all the harder. This is Valiant Strike and Bolstering Strike together and on steroids. Weapon vs Fort, enemies in CB1, 5 temp HP * # targets hit.

Hallowed Circle: You wave your hand through the air, and a wide circle of faintly glowing symbols appears around you, damaging enemies and protecting allies within its confines. Fight where you stand on the strength of your oath to your god. Your allies are inspired here. Your enemies die here.

Bond of Protection: You create a spiritual link between yourself and an ally that allows you to partially shield your friend from harm. 1st layer of prayer club; you shield your allies with divine protection. 2nd layer of prayer club; should they be hurt, you take the burden of their suffering and injury upon yourself instead.


Given the aggregation of all of these mechanics, what theme of play is incentivized and what would you expect to manifest during play if not:

- Unyieldingly pursue and destroy evil (especially supernatural evil) whereever you may find it.
- Be stout of form, heart, and mind.
- Be ever vigil.
- T
he shame of dishonor before your god/cause or failure in your oath ceaselessly drives your pursuit of honor.
- Your faith/oath bulwarks your courage.
- Self-sacrifice over self-interest.
- May your faith and your armor protect you, and if not, die unflinchingly for your noble cause.
- Protect all under your charge and those who cannot defend themselves.
- Lead from the front.
- Be a steadfast example and inspire those who have lost hope.
- Be a man of action.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Forcing a handful of enemies over to you is just another way of acting on the game world.

Except you are controlling the actions of character's outside your own. Not just influencing them, but physically moving them. And it is not clear what is actually making them move. Not everyone finds this sort of thing jarring. A lot of us do though.
 

Except you are controlling the actions of character's outside your own. Not just influencing them, but physically moving them.
My understanding of the 3E disarm rules is that they don't allow the target to choose to be stabbed instead of disarmed - yet at least some disarming techniques (as best I understand things) involves forcing that sort of choice on the target.
 


My understanding of the 3E disarm rules is that they don't allow the target to choose to be stabbed instead of disarmed - yet at least some disarming techniques (as best I understand things) involves forcing that sort of choice on the target.

i don't know much about real world disarming with swords. But I dont this this is the sort of thing disarm is attempting to model. It might even be a bad or unrealistic rule. However it isnt a big problem because no one really associates the disarm with the character choosing between taking damage and being disarmed. This is in fact the first I have ever heard about disarms involving such a choice. Come and get it creates a problem I just cant get around. I think it is fair to say there is a big difference between physically forcing a weapon out of a person's hand and forcing them to choose to walk over to you. It is also choice operating on a much smaller scale than physically moving on the battlefield from point A to point B. that is the sort of choice gamers expect to be in the hands of the person playing the character. Movement is something you normally have control over in the game.
 

Not if you roll a 20 with your (say) +20 Diplomacy bonus.

Come and Get It is an auto-20.

And if it's so jarring, there's nothing that forces a player to take CaGI. There are still hundreds of other options.

The argument about it reminds me of people that have stated that they will not play, or even consider game X if it has Y option. How about just not playing with Y option? I know it's all preference, but some arguments take absurd to the limit, IMO.
 

Not if you roll a 20 with your (say) +20 Diplomacy bonus.

Come and Get It is an auto-20.

it is worth noting, most of us who have an issue with come and get it, also have issues with the diplomacy skill. But if you do actually read the diplomacy entry, it isn't even as bad as the critics usually say. It is pretty much about changing the targets disposition to you, not so much about dictating their behavior.
 

And if it's so jarring, there's nothing that forces a player to take CaGI. There are still hundreds of other options.

The argument about it reminds me of people that have stated that they will not play, or even consider game X if it has Y option. How about just not playing with Y option? I know it's all preference, but some arguments take absurd to the limit, IMO.

my problem with 4E is this is one of many rules I would have to remove to make it work for my style. And once the rule is in the game, if other players want to use it, it will come into play at the table. You can always change a game to suit your taste. Ideally, a given system requires the least amount of reworking possible to fit your expectations.

But look, if you dont have a problem with this mechanic, that is fine. If it doesn't create these issues for you, I can see how you might like it. But it genuinely does create problems for me. I just find it frustrating that people have trouble accepting 1) 4e is not a fun game for some people and 2) part of the reason is things ike this disrupt some peoples sense of disbelief by giving characters too much control over the narrative (to the extent that in a case pike this they are controlling the actions of npcs or monsters).
 

my problem with 4E is this is one of many rules I would have to remove to make it work for my style. And once the rule is in the game, if other players want to use it, it will come into play at the table. You can always change a game to suit your taste. Ideally, a given system requires the least amount of reworking possible to fit your expectations.

Sure, I agree.

If a game doesn't fit my style I go on. I play one that does, or mold the one that doesn't to my style and move on. I find that is a better use of my time. I don't spend my time going into threads, and forums for the game I don't like, and keep complaining about it. I go to forums for the game I like, and discuss the game I like there.

That is where, IMO, a dislike can get to an absurd point. If someone likes A but I don't, I don't go to every thread for A, and carpet bomb it about my dislike for A. I don't mind honest discussion, I have very little appreciation for threadcrapping.

For example there were enough aspects of Pathfinder that I did not like/enjoy. There were enough of them that I don't play Pathfinder because of them. However, I don't spend my time in Pathfinder threads and keep arguing about those aspects I didn't like. I go to threads about the game I do like and discuss the game I do enjoy there. If discussion about those aspects of Pathfinder that I don't like comes up in those thread I might give my opinion, as they relate to the game that I like. I understand that my opinion is not universal and I don't try to pass it off as fact. At times I find that aspects that I didn't originally like, have been "corrected" to my liking in further errata, or splatbooks. So when my opinion was originally uninformed I admit it and move on, I don't keep spouting my opinion as fact when it's obvious that the game has changed/moved on.

BTW just to be clear, I'm not saying that's what you have done. However, there are a lot of people that have. It gets old rather fast, specially after 4+ years of the same arguments. At times even having arguments about aspects of the game that have already been changed in errata, or further sourcebooks.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top