Pramas on 4E and New Gamers

[The Cardinal]

In all former editions of D&D, you could disarm someone. In 4e it´s not a standard option, but a result of a power. Thusly, most DMs won´t allow it.

Noonan certainly doesn´t.

Bingo! If you turn everything, including seemingly "mundane" actions, into "Powers", then you suddenly need to have the right power to even attempt those actions! You cannot attempt (in any serious way) to throw a fireball - unless you have some kind of access to such a power. But you should be able to attempt to disarm (or strangle or tackle or trip) someone even without any kind of training - though you will most likely fail.

 

[vagabundo]

Bingo! If you turn everything, including seemingly "mundane" actions, into "Powers", then you suddenly need to have the right power to even attempt those actions! You cannot attempt (in any serious way) to throw a fireball - unless you have some kind of access to such a power. But you should be able to attempt to disarm (or strangle or tackle or trip) someone even without any kind of training - though you will most likely fail.

The answer here is all in the abstraction level used. All the actions listed happen in the abstract combat of DND during the round to round fighting that is atk roll-hp damage.

3e was very spiky* when it came to abstraction, some things could be very detailed and others not, it lead to issues when some actions were combined.

4e, to my mind, has a more even level of abstraction that is slightly higher than the 3e avg level. It also makes more use of standard terms and keywords. However Prone in most cases will mean your flat on your back for a second or two, slightly winded or depending on the creature something different (up to the DM to explain it for non-humanoids). Prone is an abstraction to indicate a few different conditons; your able to crawl if you want as default,you give combat advantage, ...

4e also hands some narrative control to the player. It says you have a power called Trip, your trained in Tripping, it is difficult to Trip in combat and the opportunity to pull it off so your target is Prone, on average, only happens once in a encounter. It is more abstract than 3e. Anyone can and does attempt to trip in the ebb and flow of atk rolls in 4e, but that isnt Trip and they don't knock anyone Prone with it.

So, there are abstraction and narrative control changes from 3e to 4e that some people will hate, truly hate. I love it personally. But if your going to compare the two you need to change your mindset when thinking about what is happening with 4e, atk rolls and power usage.

*all dnd (including 4e) is spiky with the abstraction level, but thats dnd for ya.

PS: the above is my take on 4e combat and my take on 3e, not trying to start a thread derailment here.

 

[Steely Dan]

*snip*

Awesome, awesome post- very eloquent, that is exactly how I feel, but obviously haven't worded it as well as you!

 

[vagabundo]

Awesome, awesome post- very eloquent, that is exactly how I feel, but obviously haven't worded it as well as you!

Thanks, although I have to credit multiple posts from ENworld, during DNDxp, where this stuff was discussed to death.

 

[Settembrini]

Vagabundo:

Sadly, your excellent rationalization is NOT backed up by reality.

You are retconning, for whatever reasons. Please watch the Podcast, where Davod Noonan DMs a set-piece combat (or rather half of it).

It´s blatantly clear that the abstraction you are interpreting into 4e isn´t applied to the game by it´s designers, for ex :damage is actual damage!

Really, I can see how you MAY run 4e as and abstracted engine like you described. But even if so, the abstraction is FIRMLY guided by the powers and HP.

It´s about choosing a power and making a d20 roll. That´s the input you as a player are expected to have.

The point remains: I can only do what the powers let me. How you DESCRIBE stuff is pretty useless/meaningless.

Actually, when thinking about it, Vagabond is actually helping and reinforcing my position.

 

[Steely Dan]

-Sadly, your excellent rationalization is NOT backed up by reality.

-Actually, when thinking about it, Vagabond is actually helping and reinforcing my position.

-…Not by yours maybe.

-Not at all, and what exactly is your postion?

 

[Maggan]

-Not at all, and what exactly is your postion?

WotC is evil and can do nothing right. I think that sums it up.

At least that's my guess.

/M

 

[hong]

Vagabundo:

Sadly, your excellent rationalization is NOT backed up by reality.

You are retconning, for whatever reasons. Please watch the Podcast, where Davod Noonan DMs a set-piece combat (or rather half of it).

You were in the podcast? Which one was you?

 

[vagabundo]

Vagabundo:

Sadly, your excellent rationalization is NOT backed up by reality.

You are retconning, for whatever reasons. Please watch the Podcast, where Davod Noonan DMs a set-piece combat (or rather half of it).

It´s blatantly clear that the abstraction you are interpreting into 4e isn´t applied to the game by it´s designers, for ex :damage is actual damage!

Really, I can see how you MAY run 4e as and abstracted engine like you described. But even if so, the abstraction is FIRMLY guided by the powers and HP.

It´s about choosing a power and making a d20 roll. That´s the input you as a player are expected to have.

The point remains: I can only do what the powers let me. How you DESCRIBE stuff is pretty useless/meaningless.

Actually, when thinking about it, Vagabond is actually helping and reinforcing my position.

HP are recognised as much more than physical damage, I believe the PHB says skill, luck, and resolve. They are an abstract concept. Otherwise many of the Warlords powers could not work.

Even if, in game, Dave mentioned that this was damage, that does not negate the fact that HPs are an abstract concept, combining many details into one. *

4e keywords, conditions and powers are similarly abstract, but as I mentioned, all editions of DND have been spiky in this regard.

Not all concepts are equally abstract. So some conditions may be more detailed, grounded in physical reality, than others and less open to interpretations.

There is a differences in this with regard to 3e and 4e, if you try and apply your 3e viewpoint to 4e you will find many, many contradictions. If I applied my (new) 4e viewpoint to 3e I get a head ache ( ). They are different games in how they handle the narrative, but oddly I find them very similar mechanically.**

And I have to strongly disagree with the comment about how combat is described is meaningless, only the mechanics matter, because for me DND is a Story. As long as the mechanics aid the flow of the Story, and are interesting, they do not matter to me.

* DMing is a difficult job and every DM has different styles, if Dave wants to describe HPs as damage then that is cool. In combat descriptions that are fun/consistant is hard, I'm sure all you DMs will agree.
** 4e is a 3e game with a 1e Story?

 

[Steely Dan]

And I have to strongly disagree with the comment about how combat is described is meaningless, only the mechanics matter, because for me DND is a Story. As long as the mechanics aid the flow of the Story, and are interesting, they do not matter to me.

Exactly, my players would be greatly disappointed if I stopped with my vivid, colourful descriptions of their combat actions (and they join in too, sometimes).

…That was the only thing that kept combat interesting in 3rd Ed for us. But even though 4th combat is light years ahead in the interesting department, there's no way I'm going to stop with my descriptions!