Why are single target powers stated as Close Burst?

[Merkuri]

When I first came across a power worded like this, I was confused for probably all of 30 seconds. I realized almost immediately that Close powers don't provoke, and I thought, "Oh, that's a neat way to make a ranged attack that doesn't provoke!"

Regarding making everything clear within the power and not having to reference other rules and keywords, that would make some really wordy powers. Would you imagine having to write out the meaning of status effects, like Dazed, each time a power references one? Sure, in a perfect world you'd like to be able to make each power understandable on its own, but that's just not a good use of space.

Also, for powers that work similarly you'll end up having a ton of text that's identical between the two, and you'll have to painstakingly scan through the two powers to find out what's different between them. Finding the little bit of text in the large paragraph that says "Does not provoke" may take you longer than looking up what a Close Burst attack is and what makes it different from a Ranged attack. (Plus, once you look that up once, odds are you will remember it for next time and not need to look it up again.)

The fact of the matter is, although we're not computers, our brains are incredibly powerful. We have good memories and logic centers, and we're able to remember that a Close power has an area of effect, an origin square in your space, and doesn't provoke. And if you don't remember it, you probably know how to look it up in the PHB or the Compendium.

Also, the more you use this information the more likely you are to remember it, so players with a small amount of powers are pretty likely to remember how they work after they've used those powers in a few battles. Without looking anything up, I know as an Invoker in my Monday night game that Sun Strike is a Ranged 10 attack and I will get hit if I try to use it when an ogre with a club is standing next to me. I also know that Astral Wind is a better choice in that situation, because not only will it push the ogre away from me, but the ogre doesn't get to hit me for using it.

But if I go for a few months without playing that Invoker and my knowledge of Sun Strike and Astral Wind gets rusty, I can read "Ranged 10" and "Close Blast 3" and know immediately which of those powers is good to use when there's a goblin standing next to me.

 

[Balesir]

I can't agree with the "use natural language" concept for game (or other) rules. Rules and laws are, by the nature of what they (try to) do, technical 'programs'. If they don't start out that way they rapidly become so as the community that commonly uses those rules comes to agreements on what terms and sections of the rules mean (classic 'case law'). Since this is going to happen anyway, it makes abundant sense to design the rules text to work this way from the outset.

Using "natural language" to closely define and understand detailed topics doesn't work - that is why every technical discipline ever formed has had "jargon". Formulating that 'jargon' of defined terms to gel with 'natural language' as far as possible is a worthy goal, for sure - but it does hold the danger of folk assuming the rules should be read purely as 'natural language', which means that, in their minds, they are undefined at all points where they don't like them.

That is not to say that the rules are perfectly written in defined terms, of course - but at least by setting out terms and defining them to begin with there is a reasonably firm foundation on which to build.

 

[Mapache]

Speaking of failures of presentation, there's the issue of keywords with rules baggage. Nearly all the keywords of a power don't actually do anything on their own. If it's Divine, Radiant, & Healing or Arcane & Fire, that only matters for other other effects, mostly Feats, that look for specific keywords. They're just tags that other parts of the rules interact with.

However, there's a few that actually make the power do something, like Rattling, Invigorating, and Stance. Hiding this important mechanical effect in the pile of easily-ignored keywords makes it hard to see what a power does when you're looking through a list of powers. People naturally start ignoring the type line very quickly, because it doesn't tell you much you didn't know about a power, except when it's suddenly crucial.

Having consistent, named effects like this is very important, but they should be stated in the Effect part of the power where people will see them, not buried in a tag system people ignore unless they're searching for a specific keyword.

What's worse is that WotC knows this. They restructured the rules on Magic: the Gathering cards in 2005 to avoid this exact same problem. There, creature types are a list of keywords that do nothing on their own, and only act as a tagging system for other cards to interact with. However, they had two types, Wall and Legend, that did things when on a card, so they fixed that. The rules text formerly granted by the Wall type became the Defender keyword, and all Walls were errated to have Defender (but now non-walls could have it too, and you'll never miss this crucial limitation in the rules box on the card). Creatures that were formerly Legends instead gained the Legendary supertype, which is the first word in the type line, even before Creature, where it's much harder to miss, letting them normalize the rules with Legendary non-creature cards.

 

[Dausuul]

I must spread some XP around before giving it to Mapache again.

 

[pemerton]

I can't agree with the "use natural language" concept for game (or other) rules. Rules and laws are, by the nature of what they (try to) do, technical 'programs'. If they don't start out that way they rapidly become so as the community that commonly uses those rules comes to agreements on what terms and sections of the rules mean (classic 'case law'). Since this is going to happen anyway, it makes abundant sense to design the rules text to work this way from the outset.

This is not true for laws, at least in common law countries (including the US and Australia), where laws are expressed in natural language (English, as it happens) and issues of interpretation drawing on considerations of natural language meaning are frequently central to the process of adjudication.

For a discussion of this issue from the US point of view you can refer to writings by Ronald Dworkin, Larry Solum, Scott Soames or Justice Scalia.

 

[Samir]

I had a chance to do some reading of the various book last night. It is now clear that wizards tried to accomplish two jobs with the LOE rules: (i) describe the straight lines of projectiles such as arrows; and (ii) describe the spread of waves, such as sound and force waves, which do not go in straight lines. Obviously, the same rules cannot adequately describe both phenomena, because arrows cannot go around corners, but sounds clearly do go around corners. It may in fact be the ambiguity in the word "line" that allowed the two different readings in the two different contexts, and thus allowed the inconsistency to go unnoticed.

Unless we get a specific ruling, I'm going to decide that LOE's are straight in ranged attacks and that they are not straight in bursts and blasts. I'm not saying that you neccessarily should do it this way, and in fact you're free to houserule that LOE's are straight in bursts and blasts. Ideally, I would like an official ruling on this.

Returning to the OP: it may be that another reason for the use of close burst for these powers, rather than something like "ranged (does not provoke)", was in fact to allow these powers to follow wave physics rather than projectile physics, i.e., to allow them to go around corners.

FYI: DMB = Dungeon Master's Book, not Dungeon Master's Guide. The DMB is contemporaneous with the Rules Compendium.

There is one definition of Line of Effect within 4e, and that is described on page 107 of the Rules Compendium, accompanied by this:

This establishes that lines of effect are straight, not curved.

Burst is described on page 109: "A burst affects a target only if the target is in the burst's area and there is line of effect from the burst's origin square to the target. Even if a creature is in the area of Albanon's shock sphere, the creature isn't affected by the lightning if it is behind an obstacle that blocks line of effect between the creature and the origin square." Per this rule, the goblin on the right side of the grid would not be affected by a close burst originating from our heroine at the bottom of the grid.

In short, no, bursts do not go around corners in 4e. (However, that's not to say you can't houserule it in.)

Hope this helps.

 

[Balesir]

This is not true for laws, at least in common law countries (including the US and Australia), where laws are expressed in natural language (English, as it happens) and issues of interpretation drawing on considerations of natural language meaning are frequently central to the process of adjudication.

Yes, that was why I said "If they don't start out that way they rapidly become so as the community that commonly uses those rules comes to agreements on what terms and sections of the rules mean (classic 'case law')." What I'm saying here is that basing rules on "natural language" means that an extended debate is then required to establish what the rules actually mean in detail. In common law this is called "case law" and consists of a body of what the rules have been taken to mean in specific circumstances over time.

Whilst it would no doubt be possible to frame roleplaying game rules like the common law and rely for the interpretations made in-game on an extensive body of 'case law' (i.e. decisions by GMs, or just by the specific GM running the present game, during past play), I don't think this is a very desirable model for RPGs. It works OK where you have a professional class that exists entirely to (a) make the interpretations in specific cases and (b) argue for different interpretations before those who decide - but despite (admittedly) enjoying both these activities on internet fora I think they detract from, rather than add to, the experience of play.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, that was why I said "If they don't start out that way they rapidly become so as the community that commonly uses those rules comes to agreements on what terms and sections of the rules mean (classic 'case law')." What I'm saying here is that basing rules on "natural language" means that an extended debate is then required to establish what the rules actually mean in detail. In common law this is called "case law" and consists of a body of what the rules have been taken to mean in specific circumstances over time.

Whilst it would no doubt be possible to frame roleplaying game rules like the common law and rely for the interpretations made in-game on an extensive body of 'case law' (i.e. decisions by GMs, or just by the specific GM running the present game, during past play), I don't think this is a very desirable model for RPGs. It works OK where you have a professional class that exists entirely to (a) make the interpretations in specific cases and (b) argue for different interpretations before those who decide - but despite (admittedly) enjoying both these activities on internet fora I think they detract from, rather than add to, the experience of play.

D&D rules must be parsed and applied by people who aren't jargon-masters. Not everyone is a hardcore rules expert; indeed, many of the people I have most enjoyed gaming with have had a fairly shaky grasp on the rules. And as I said above, 4E puts a heavier burden on all players to understand the rules that apply to their own PCs.

The more reliant on technical game-jargon D&D becomes, the more inaccessible it is to the casual player. Therefore, a strong effort should be made to align the technical jargon with natural language, in such a way that the casual player's instinctive "natural" interpretation of the rules is likely to be in the same ballpark as the technical one.

D&D books are not advanced computer science texts. They are instruction manuals for your grandma to use getting her computer up and running. Some grandmas are very computer-savvy... others, not so much.

 

[Balesir]

D&D rules must be parsed and applied by people who aren't jargon-masters. Not everyone is a hardcore rules expert; indeed, many of the people I have most enjoyed gaming with have had a fairly shaky grasp on the rules. And as I said above, 4E puts a heavier burden on all players to understand the rules that apply to their own PCs.

To an extent I agree with you, here. That is what I was getting at when I wrote "Formulating that 'jargon' of defined terms to gel with 'natural language' as far as possible is a worthy goal, for sure - but it does hold the danger of folk assuming the rules should be read purely as 'natural language', which means that, in their minds, they are undefined at all points where they don't like them." What I mean is that D&D (and 4E specifically, given its apparent design goals) should be written according to defined terms and so forth - and should be interpreted that way in play - but those terms should be chosen to fit with 'natural language' wherever possible. Opening the door to 'it means whatever you hear it to mean' would usher in chaos, I think - but making it sound comprehensible when simply read aloud is still a good aim.

I still don't think it is unreasonable, however, to expect a player to read through the entirety of their character's powers.