This mentality needs to die

[nedjer]

For example, a skill challenge I am likely to be running in my next session involves finding a goblin stronghold in a hidden valley and sneaking into it. As part of that challenge, it would makes sense for the ranger to try and pick off lone sentries with bow fire.

I can't see anything in there to even pause over, let alone look in a book.

Roll attack
12
Roll damage
14
The arrow pierces the goblin's armour. It's body pirouettes and pitches forward into the moat.
Check to see if the splash is heard.
The guard at the gate looks over - but not in time to see the corpse hitting the water.
Thief tries to get past the guard without being noticed.
Done

Do we really need rules to tell us so much about how we play?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I also remember one of the game designers mentioning they're often not a good person to ask about a current ruling, since they've designed and playtested dozens of rule variants, some of which didn't make it into the game or will be released at some later date.

E.g. considering the forthcoming Rules Compendium I could imagine it will contain some rule changes nobody outside of WotC knows about yet.

Exactly. You get a good sense of this if you listen to the Q&A Podcast from last month with Mike Mearls. He pretty much admits he has no idea how the push rules work. He just assumes that the push has to be in a straight line.

It kind of comes from designing in a group. One designer comes up with a rule which they all discuss and decide is the best rule to put into the book. But individual designers had their own temporary rules for their own game. They forget about the one they all agreed on. This is especially true when the rule went through a lot of changes.

However, in this case, the rules say you can only creatures with it. I have no problem with the ruling exactly as it happened.

 

[Oldtimer]

However, in this case, the rules say you can only [target] creatures with it. I have no problem with the ruling exactly as it happened.

Unless, of course, you have picked up PHB2 and read the glossary on page 223.

attacking objects: With your DM’s permission, you can use a power that normally attacks creatures to attack objects.

That brings it back to stingy DM territory.

 

[Hussar]

I just watched the first several episodes of this (just came out on my ipod). I have to say that the fact that Bluebell, the player in question, is a complete newbie to role playing, never mind D&D, has to factor heavily in this discussion.

In the designer notes, Chris mentions quite explicitly that his goal is to keep things moving. These players had about 2 minutes to pick their pregens and they had no time to preview any rules. Bluebell's player is playing 100% blind.

Could Chris have given an ingame ruling - that darkfire isn't really fire and thus can't burn things? Sure. No problem. But, he chose to end any conversation and keep the game moving by just relying on a mechanical reason. Is it the choice I would have made? Probably not. But, then again, I can't think of the last time I played with someone who had zero gaming experience.

Trying to explain to a complete newbie why darkfire isn't really fire might have taken longer than just saying, "sorry, targets creatures only."

Depends on the DM's priorities. Which is more important? Keeping things moving or explaining it "right"?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Unless, of course, you have picked up PHB2 and read the glossary on page 223.

That brings it back to stingy DM territory.

I'm aware of the rule. But that says to me that the general rule is that they cannot target objects. And that exceptions can be made. But, IMHO, exceptions should be exactly that....exceptions.

I expect that the DM would use his discretion in rare circumstances. Not simply because someone says "Can I use this power on that object?"

For instance, I often allow players to target objects when those objects are firing at them(like traps).

 

[pemerton]

I can't see anything in there to even pause over, let alone look in a book.

Roll attack
12
Roll damage
14
The arrow pierces the goblin's armour. It's body pirouettes and pitches forward into the moat.
Check to see if the splash is heard.
The guard at the gate looks over - but not in time to see the corpse hitting the water.
Thief tries to get past the guard without being noticed.
Done

Well, 14 damage won't kill a goblin (other than a minion) in 4e. One option, of course, is to make the sentry a minion. On the other hand, suppose that things go wrong and the PCs find themselves confronting 5 sentries who have assembled in formation, I'm not sure I want to treat that as a combat vs 5 minions - it would be more interesting as a combat vs 5 real goblins.

If I do treat the sentry as a minion, then how does killing it factor into the skill challenge? A success? A +2 to someone else's Stealth check? This is the sort of mechanical advice I think a rulebook could provide (eg DMG2 suggests, without being entirely clear about the balancing issues, that using an attack power against the sentry will grant a +2 bonus only if the power used is an Encounter power).

Do we really need rules to tell us so much about how we play?

I can't speak for anyone else but me. But speaking for myself, where the point of the rules is to achieve some sort of mechanical balance across the spread of options for each player, and the maths is not transparent just on inspection, then yes, I do want rules to help me.

Of course I can wing it - I was a Rolemaster GM for 20 years, and GMing Rolemaster involves constantly deciding on, and then adjudicating, house rules for action resolution.
But part of the reason my group has switched from Rolmeaster to 4e is because 4e is mechanically much tighter and plays much better - less handling time, less swingy overall but more dramatic becuase often more swingy round-by-round. This is due to the mechanics. And I want more mechanics to help me achieve this in parts of the game (ie the combat/skill challenge interface) which are currently poorly developed.

A comparison: if I sat down with a pen and paper for a few hours I might be able to work out sensible success numbers for an extended contest in HeroQuest, but the book helps by having Robin Laws do the maths and write it up in a handy table - and according to the credits he's even playtested it! I don't think it's too much to ask for 4e to offer the same mechanical support.

 

[nedjer]

Well, 14 damage won't kill a goblin (other than a minion) in 4e. One option, of course, is to make the sentry a minion. On the other hand, suppose that things go wrong and the PCs find themselves confronting 5 sentries who have assembled in formation, I'm not sure I want to treat that as a combat vs 5 minions - it would be more interesting as a combat vs 5 real goblins.

If I do treat the sentry as a minion, then how does killing it factor into the skill challenge? A success? A +2 to someone else's Stealth check? This is the sort of mechanical advice I think a rulebook could provide (eg DMG2 suggests, without being entirely clear about the balancing issues, that using an attack power against the sentry will grant a +2 bonus only if the power used is an Encounter power).

I can't speak for anyone else but me. But speaking for myself, where the point of the rules is to achieve some sort of mechanical balance across the spread of options for each player, and the maths is not transparent just on inspection, then yes, I do want rules to help me.

Of course I can wing it - I was a Rolemaster GM for 20 years, and GMing Rolemaster involves constantly deciding on, and then adjudicating, house rules for action resolution.
But part of the reason my group has switched from Rolmeaster to 4e is because 4e is mechanically much tighter and plays much better - less handling time, less swingy overall but more dramatic becuase often more swingy round-by-round. This is due to the mechanics. And I want more mechanics to help me achieve this in parts of the game (ie the combat/skill challenge interface) which are currently poorly developed.

A comparison: if I sat down with a pen and paper for a few hours I might be able to work out sensible success numbers for an extended contest in HeroQuest, but the book helps by having Robin Laws do the maths and write it up in a handy table - and according to the credits he's even playtested it! I don't think it's too much to ask for 4e to offer the same mechanical support.

If you're going to present sensible, reasoned arguments like that I'd have to accept the point you're making. Without any rules we'd be winging everything/ exhausted, and while I like a pile of timber to build with, you're enjoying starting with a timber frame and building from there.