Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alex319" data-source="post: 4783305" data-attributes="member: 45678">I've participated in several discussions on this topic, and I think I understand a major part of the reason behind why some people have so much trouble with "Vancian" 4e martial powers while they didn't have trouble with 3.xe.It's not that 4e is less "realistic" than 3.5e, or requires less suspension of disbelief. As has been pointed out, neither system is very realistic at all. True, it's unrealistic that a given power can never be used more than once an encounter - just like it's unrealistic that people move in 5 foot increments; it's just an approximation for gameplay purposes. And it's not clear that Vancian martial abilities are any worse an approximation than anything else in the game.It's not that it's hard to "narrate" what's going on in a 4e combat. As has been pointed out, there are plenty of ways to "narrate" why a power would work in one situation but not another.Another reason I've heard is that it means that characters don't understand what's going on because there's no way to explain why martial abilities have use restrictions in a way that the characters would understand, but that's not it either. That was also true of 3.5e magic - there was no "underlying reason" behind Vancian magic - that's just the way magic works. (And it's hard to see how any other explanation would even be possible.) And of course, that's also true of real-life phenomena - imagine explaining to a medieval person the "underlying reason" behind how a television works - he would surely think it something that you just made up.The real problem, at least for many players, is something more subtle. The problem is that it forces characters to know the mechanics. In other words, with 3.5e, players didn't have to know the mechanics of how a trip works in order to trip an opponent. Theoretically, a player wouldn't even have to read that section of the rulebook - he could just say "I try to trip the opponent," and the DM could translate that into the appropriate mechanics (the PC makes a trip attempt.) However, with 4e, that's no longer possible. Suppose the player says "I try to trip the opponent," and he has a power that knocks the target prone. Does the character want to use his encounter power now? Should this be resolved as "the character tried to trip, but couldn't find an opening to trip, so he used an at-will instead?" What if the character has multiple encounter powers that trip - which one should be used? Or does the character want to trip, but doesn't want to use his encounter power right now, so this should be resolved as a stunt?Similar things occur with other abilities. For example, an ability that says "recharge an encounter power of your choice" implies that characters know about encounter powers and know which ones they have so they can choose one to recharge. An ability that says "one of your allies makes a save against an effect that a save can end" implies that characters can identify effects that saves can end, and distinguish them from effects that saves can't end (like "until end of next turn" effects).Of course, all this occurs with 3.5e magic as well, so why wasn't it a problem there? One possibility is that 3.5e magic is implied to be gotten through either arcane study (wizards et al.) or granted by the gods (clerics et al). Both of these make it reasonable that characters would know underlying mechanics. Certainly, if the way magic worked in the game world included things like spell levels, level-dependent durations, metamagic effects that alter keywords of spells, etc., characters would learn about all these things in "wizard school." For the case of deity granted power, it's more of a stretch, but perhaps the deity provides his or her disciples with a booklet of terms and conditions that explain exactly what powers he will provide, and how often he will provide them, kind of like how when you sign up for a cell phone plan you are told the number of minutes you can use before being charged extra.But for the case of a martial character like a fighter or barbarian, who gaets his powers from raw skill, strength, or talent rather than study, it's less reasonable to believe that the character would know the underlying mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification