Rule of Three 10/31/11

[The Halfling]

the new Rule of Three is up

 

[Imaro]

Wow was a bit surprised at the answer to number one for three reasons...

The first is that I would have never guessed that "sim" was a priority when it came to 4e's mechanics... second because it kind of implies that even the developers/designers of 4e saw a difference in what should be accomplishable with mundane vs. magical means... and lastly because it also indicates an assumption that the martial keyword is suppose to be mundane and not a sort of magic as some have tried to claim.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think that the golden tidbit in the answer to that question, regardless of the fluff vs. crunch disconnect issues, is that the system they used is about choices. I find that immensely more satisfying as both player and DM than a mechanic that says, "you MUST do this."

Taunting works for WoW, but in D&D, the mark mechanics are much better, IMHO. They made the right decision there.

 

[Imaro]

I think that the golden tidbit in the answer to that question, regardless of the fluff vs. crunch disconnect issues, is that the system they used is about choices. I find that immensely more satisfying as both player and DM than a mechanic that says, "you MUST do this."

Taunting works for WoW, but in D&D, the mark mechanics are much better, IMHO. They made the right decision there.

Eh, I just find the reasoning much more interesting than the result. D&D 4e isn't the first game to have a mark-like mechanic, but I am interested in the reasoning (not just one particular reason) for them deciding to use it as opposed to some other mechanic. YMMV of course.

EDIT: In other words the tidbits I find interesting are the ones that have been the source of internet debate for awhile now.

 

[MrMyth]

The first is that I would have never guessed that "sim" was a priority when it came to 4e's mechanics... second because it kind of implies that even the developers/designers of 4e saw a difference in what should be accomplishable with mundane vs. magical means... and lastly because it also indicates an assumption that the martial keyword is suppose to be mundane and not a sort of magic as some have tried to claim.

The default explanation for the martial power source has always been mundane - it represents skill and training that allows a seasoned warrior to take advantage of the right opportunities in combat to deliver powerful special attacks. (Hence the name Expoits - they exploit the right circumstance to deliver their attack.)

Now, for many, that was too narrative driven and left holes open that could hinder their suspension of disbelief. Many folks have come up with or used various other interpretations, and that's perfectly fine. These include everything from certain attacks taking extra effort, to the system being driven by some sort of chi or similar energy, to it representing superhuman or supernatural magical ability.

But that was never the official explanation, and those who were using that as a criticism of the system were always pretty much just... making up stuff (or failing to understand stuff) in order to have more reasons to complain.

 

[Imaro]

The default explanation for the martial power source has always been mundane - it represents skill and training that allows a seasoned warrior to take advantage of the right opportunities in combat to deliver powerful special attacks. (Hence the name Expoits - they exploit the right circumstance to deliver their attack.)

Now, for many, that was too narrative driven and left holes open that could hinder their suspension of disbelief. Many folks have come up with or used various other interpretations, and that's perfectly fine. These include everything from certain attacks taking extra effort, to the system being driven by some sort of chi or similar energy, to it representing superhuman or supernatural magical ability.

But that was never the official explanation, and those who were using that as a criticism of the system were always pretty much just... making up stuff (or failing to understand stuff) in order to have more reasons to complain.

Actually I saw more 4e fans claiming that the martial keyword was never explicitely defined as mundane and that there was even a sentence cited from the PHB concerning this... so no it wasn't detractors I saw who claimed this, it was mostly fans. which is why I find it intersting.

 

[MrMyth]

Actually I saw more 4e fans claiming that the martial keyword was never explicitely defined as mundane and that there was even a sentence cited from the PHB concerning this... so no it wasn't detractors I saw who claimed this, it was mostly fans. which is why I find it intersting.

I've definitely seen folks who have argued for being able to give different explanations for something (Power Source) that has no real in-game mechanical effect. I don't think I've seen anyone argue that the PHB suggests that martial powers are inherently 'superheroic' other than those who tend to throw that idea around as criticism. But I'll admit I haven't seen every post on the topic, so there may well be such claims out there.

The PHB itself, I believe, explicitly says that the Martial power source is not magical, but just represents a combination of using strength, determination, and training to overcome one's foes. It mentions epic warriors being able to do things well beyond the range of ordinary men and women, but I don't think there is anything strange about that. I'm not quite sure what line you might be referring to that is more ambiguous about the power source.

In any case, returning to the original point... the Marking method doesn't always make sense (should it really still apply the -2 penalty even if the Fighter is left stunned in a corner, fifty feet away from the monster who is marked?) but it is, aside from such corner-cases, a rather elegant way of letting PCs encourage monster behavior without being able to control it. At least, in my opinion.