Why I'm done with 4e

[CleverNickName]

Are you saying that you in the real world could poke a whole in a steel door with a steel dagger? I must admit that I know little of such things, so I am asking, because my guess would be "no".

All of the (plausible) stories I've heard about people digging themselves out of prison seem to include a bit about scraping the mortar away from the door frame (or bolts, or window bars, or whatever). I don't remember hearing about anyone actually cutting through steel to escape a prison; they somehow managed to detach the steel from the stone.

Which makes sense, I guess. Some older types of mortar are quite a bit softer than the iron, tin, or copper that spoons were once made of. But this was before the days of epoxy, high density concrete, and nonexpansive grout.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rather than simply "yes" or "no", it's "No, but..."

Prohibit the completely unreasonable action ("No, you can't dig through solid stone with a wooden spoon, no matter how strong you are."), but throw them a bone by hinting at another more reasonable course ("One of the iron bars in the window of your prison cell is a little looose in its mortar. Given time, you might be able to use your raw strength to wiggle it out.").

For me, I don't like using "unreasonable" as a byline to prohibit action in a fantasy adventure game.

I would like them to be able to shatter solid stone with a well-placed blow (and maybe blame it on the spoon) with sufficient strength.

Because that way, it's more fantastical, and has better consequences when the group later faces a stone golem that they're punching or something.

But hey, your "No, but..." approach is fine for DMs who don't have the balls to have their PC's punching through solid stone walls with their fists. (Not that I expect most DM's to have the stomach for that, honestly, just that for me, yes, it works just fine).

 

[Celebrim]

But hey, your "No, but..." approach is fine for DMs who don't have the balls to have their PC's punching through solid stone walls with their fists. (Not that I expect most DM's to have the stomach for that, honestly, just that for me, yes, it works just fine).

I don't have a problem with PC's punching through solid stone walls with their fist. I just don't want to see it happen at 1st level, because - among other things - that means that if the PC's can do it, so can almost everyone else.

And that makes the game 'fantastical' in a whole different way that just isn't nearly so nice for everyone. It's only cool to punch through solid stone walls with your fist, if doing so is heroic. If you can do it solely because in your world solid stone is roughly as durable as styrofoam, that's not so cool.

 

[Betote]

In earlier versions: Save vs. Petrification? To hit vs. AC? What AC? Any proficiency/non-proficiency bonuses or penalties? AoO, if that misses, melee touch attack using Dex instead of Str, then a Reflex save? Just a Reflex save? What's the DC? Or no Reflex save at all?

CMB vs. the target's CMD

 

[BryonD]

The problem was that in 3e, my suspension of disbelief went out the window when high-strength characters could dig through that stone wall in 10 minutes - with no damage to their normal weapons.

I don't object to them taking a long time - that would be fine - but doing it in such a short space of time?

In 3e, a 10 foot unworked stone wall can be tunneled through by four Strength 20 fighters wielding greataxes in about 10 minutes...

Cheers!

I can see how this could be a suspension of disbelief problem.
However, for a 4E fan to say that *this* is a sod problem for them makes me do a double take.




Without disputing that it is reasonable to have issues with this, I do think it is entirely reasonable to have no problem with it whatsoever. You are talking about FOUR strength *20* characters. I frequently played in games with 6 PCs, and off the top of my head I don't recall ever having two STR 20 characters going at the same time. It may have happened. But I doubt it. In the games I played the strong guy in town would generally be 15 or 16. 18 was rare (not true for PCs of course, who are rare themselves by definition).

The idea of pulling together FOUR STR 20 characters seems really rare.
The idea of then using this conjunction of power to plow through a stone wall seems a bizarre waste of resources.
The visual of these four marginally superhuman powerhouses grinding steadily through a stone wall seems freaking awesome!!!!

 

[BryonD]

The problem here isn't so much the basic idea that everything has a hardness and a toughness. The problem is instead:

1) Assuming a weapon designed to cleave flesh does equal damage to all non-flesh targets.

I very much agree with this. I still don't like that items do not wear out under these type conditions. But it comes up so infrequently that the handful of times something akin to this has happened in play I've informed the players that their weapons will take damage if they put them through so much stress. And they always said something to the effect that this was reasonable and either dealt with it or made another plan.

And yeah, a sword vs stone wall is just not going to perform like stone versus orc.

 

[LostSoul]

CMB vs. the target's CMD

Exactly! I like that change.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And yeah, a sword vs stone wall is just not going to perform like stone versus orc.

It's as if the relative hardness of objects was relevant.

Never give your prisoners a piece of chalk to mark the days... they'll just use it to dig through the mortar.

 

[Henry]

It's as if the relative hardness of objects was relevant.

Never give your prisoners a piece of chalk to mark the days... they'll just use it to dig through the mortar.

Add "in D&D" to that, and it's sig-worthy.

 

[Pbartender]

For me, I don't like using "unreasonable" as a byline to prohibit action in a fantasy adventure game.

I would like them to be able to shatter solid stone with a well-placed blow (and maybe blame it on the spoon) with sufficient strength.

Because that way, it's more fantastical, and has better consequences when the group later faces a stone golem that they're punching or something.

But hey, your "No, but..." approach is fine for DMs who don't have the balls to have their PC's punching through solid stone walls with their fists. (Not that I expect most DM's to have the stomach for that, honestly, just that for me, yes, it works just fine).

But you've got admit that much of that depends greatly on the style, tone, setting and genre of the game you're playing.

Punching through a stone wall, for example, is arguably more appropriate in Mutants & Masterminds than it would be in most D&D games, and generally more appropriate in any given D&D game than it would be in, say, Spycraft.