This is question for dms running 4E games. How do you rule powers when they don't make sense?
I've noticed a lot of situations in 4E play where a player wants to use a power, but the way the power is described doesn't make any in game sense that it would actually work in the situation the player is trying to use the power in.
Here's a classic example: The fighter "come and get it" power lets the fighter pull nearby enemies to him, so that he can take a big sweeping swing that will hit them all. It's a cool power, and makes a lot of sense in many situations (like when he's in a fight with a bunch of savage orcs), but what about when he manages to get near an enemy wizard with a very high intelligence who is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to be anywhere near a fighter? Why would an enemy like that suddenly run up to the fighter so that the guy can take a swing at him?
Another Example: There's a couple of rogue powers that let a rogue temporarily blind a foe by apparently slashing the foe and thus causing blood to get in his enemy's eyes. Well what happens when the rogue tries to use such a power on a creature like an air elemental that has no eyes and doesn't bleed?
It seems to me like the dm has two options. Either he nerfs the power and says that the power doesn't work in that situation (or more fairly says that it can't be used ahead before hand so that the player can go with something different) or he lets it work but has to try to come up with some ridiculous justification for why it would have functioned under such circumstances.
So far I've done a bit of both of these. I'll try to justify a power most of the time, attempting to come up with (often with the players help) some reason why it would work, but there have been times where it just seemed too ridiculous and I've told the player that this power just can't work in the given situation. The players have generally accepted such decisions, but usually there is some grumbling.
I find that there is definitely a sense of entitlement among many players that powers should work no matter what as long as the player succeeds with whatever attack roll is needed.
I'm interested to know how other dms have dealt with such situations and how players feel about a dm reserving the right to nerf there powers if he thinks it doesn't make sense in a given situation.
Honestly you've just listed the two powers I know of with this issue. I know of Come and Get it from personal experience and I've heard of the rogue power being mentioned as a problematic one. I'd not be surprised to learn that there were a handful more but they are the exception to the rule. Most seem pretty easy to find an answer for.
I wish Wizards would just errata these handful of 'problematic' powers.
But, since they don't seem to want to do that I'd say you've mentioned two ways of handling it. One is to grit your teeth and ignore the fact that this makes no sense. The other is to overrule the power.
My personal feeling is that I'd actually consider house ruling them on a case by case basis. Basically look at any power that has this problem and see if some text could be added or changed to eliminate this difficulty. For the blinding power I'd add actual text that says that it only works on creatures that could be blinded in this way - DMs discretion but generally speaking the creature needs to have only a couple of eyes and needs to rely on them for sight. Because the power only fails in a relative minority of cases such an interpretation strikes me as making sense. Furthermore it seems mostly cut and dry. Either this would work on a creature or it would not so I think that a player could make sense of this before considering the power instead of having the DM nerf it after the fact.
For Come and Get It strikes me as a more problematic area. It often seems to not make sense to the DM while the player presumes its working. I'd go with a hard coded wording change here. Basically the power lets the fighter mark everyone and try and hit them. You can get almost the same effect if the fighter can move through multiple squares during the course of the attack hitting everyone and marking them.
I'd consider changing the power so that it states something like...
"When you use this power you attack and mark all adjacent enemies. After this you may slide one square and attack and mark all adjacent enemies you have not yet made an attack roll against. When this is complete you may slide another square and attack and mark any adjacent enemy you have not yet attacked with this power."
Essentially this lets the fight perform a similar move as come and get it, while it does not pull enemies to him the ability to slide twice is fairly good compensation. Best of all the power no longer has a tendency to not make sense.
|
Here's a classic example: The fighter "come and get it" power lets the fighter pull nearby enemies to him, so that he can take a big sweeping swing that will hit them all. It's a cool power, and makes a lot of sense in many situations (like when he's in a fight with a bunch of savage orcs), but what about when he manages to get near an enemy wizard with a very high intelligence who is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to be anywhere near a fighter? Why would an enemy like that suddenly run up to the fighter so that the guy can take a swing at him?
An easy fix comes to mind: the very smart enemy wizard can decide not to move. If he does so, he takes psychic damage equal to the average amount the fighter could have dished out, say 7 + all the fighter's relevant bonuses, and is marked or even dazed, enough to make most opponents say "heck, no" and take their chances with an attack, but possibly worth it for a strong opponent who really doesn't want to move.
|
I'm interested to know how other dms have dealt with such situations and how players feel about a dm reserving the right to nerf there powers if he thinks it doesn't make sense in a given situation.
I'm pretty much the DM who comes up with ridiculous reasons. Only times I may "nerf" a power is if organized play (RPGA) per errata or if the description is unclear about certain tactical issues like certain area effects involving line of site, corners, etc., or the power breaks disbelief out of combat (e.g., using one of those at-will cold ray powers like a firehose to squelsh a roaring fire. Really? Uh, no.)
I'm interested to know how other dms have dealt with such situations and how players feel about a dm reserving the right to nerf there powers if he thinks it doesn't make sense in a given situation.I'm pretty much the DM who comes up with ridiculous reasons. Only times I may "nerf" a power is if organized play (RPGA) per errata or if the description is unclear about certain tactical issues like certain area effects involving line of site, corners, etc., or the power breaks disbelief out of combat (e.g., using one of those at-will cold ray powers like a firehose to squelsh a roaring fire. Really? Uh, no.)
Using it like a fire hose does not work. Try counting to six with one missississi, two mississippi etc. Once you do that you begin to realize that even the at will powers are not really that fast. You could put out a small fire but anything really substantial is not going to be stopped by this type of at will power.
High intellect does not stop someone from making bad decisions (The fact that he's an evil wizard should hint at that ;p). Evil wizards are somewhat notorious for growing incredibly agitated and arrogant - hell, that's mostly what evil wizards are there for. This upstart of a fighter dares to insult my manhood? I'll bring him down like the dog he is - personally.
This doesn't really break immersion. In fact, I'm pretty sure every evil wizard from any source of fiction has done this at one point or another. Arrogantly accepting a challenge from someone else is sort of what they do right before trying to destroy the world.
As for the blinding, I'm pretty sure most elementals actually do have eyes, but I haven't fought one in 4e and don't have my books on hand, so I can't check that.
In general, I've found the best course isn't to have the DM explain it, but to have the player do so. Have them describe their attack and how it would work.
Let the power work and come up with another description for why the power worked.
For Come and Get It, the fighter insults and enrages the nearby enemies luring them into his prepared attack.
For the rouges power just say they the rouge temporally disrupted the air elementals senses with his attack.
Let the power work and come up with another description for why the power worked.
For Come and Get It, the fighter insults and enrages the nearby enemies luring them into his prepared attack.
For the rouges power just say they the rouge temporally disrupted the air elementals senses with his attack.
Exactly. While I have never had a player take Come and Get it I can easily see it working as not just insults but maybe the fighter tricks his enemies into thinking he is distracted or unprepared for a moment - and they leap to attack him while he is 'vulnerable' only to find out it was feint.
For the blinding thing every creature I've seen has some kind of sensory organ - the rogue disrupts this due to his superior knowledge of how to kill stuff. Or blind luck (also how many rogues I've seen get by :) )
Well personally, I've always wondered how a character even strikes an air elemental, seeing as how they're made of air. However, if it's realism that you're after with a power like Come and Get It, then there are a couple of things you could do. One is you could suggest that the player come up with a roleplaying justification for why the power works. Second, you might house rule that artillery characters are marked and dazed by the power instead.
|
well first off, they have said hundreds of times that the flavor text is there to HELP players come up with descriptions ans in no way says that is how it has to happen.
you and the players need to come up with ways a power is used. in the case of come and get it and the wizard, the fighter pisses him off and the wizard comes running cause hes angry and lost control.
Come and get is one of those powers that can really test those that prefer more realism within the game, so as others stated you will have to treat each one on a case by case basis. I use the power alot as a hybrid fighter/cleric, so whether any creature could truely be baited to leap at the fighter will start to bring up additional questions on how can any creature be pulled, pushed, or slided in general.
There is actually a higher level fighter power that is similar to come and get it that lets the fighter attack one creatures and push it, and any within a certain range is automatically marked. Perhaps substitute the two, as the main goal of come and get it is marking multiple targets. Or make is a weaker version of the higher level fighter power I mentioned, i.e. less damage and no push, or let the fighter have extra movement and mark as an area burst.
As to 4E in general, it tends to be the martial powers people question, as magic is usually written off as acceptable when there is a conflict. But one of the main weaknesses of melee is the lack of the same affects offered to other power sources (ranged affects). So all it may take is re-defining what martial power source entails. But as a DM, I just shrug off some of the more glaring conflicts because it is the exception versus the norm.
As to GURPS, the system is very detailed for developing a character concept, and fairly easy to run for combat, but as a DM it is much more diffcult to create balanced encounters in comparison to 3.5 or later editions.
Maybe you should try playing GURPS 4ed, instead of D&D 4ed, the rules makes more sense, is easy to run as a Gamemaster, and the players can choose whatever powers they want!!!
Nah, if I want a system that sucks I'll play Chartmaster.
Come and get is one of those powers that can really test those that prefer more realism within the game, so as others stated you will have to treat each one on a case by case basis. I use the power alot as a hybrid fighter/cleric, so whether any creature could truely be baited to leap at the fighter will start to bring up additional questions on how can any creature be pulled, pushed, or slided in general.
The key is that I don't usually have this issue. The fact that the powers tend to come with the opportunity for a narrative is actually something I like with 4E. It creates awesome scenes and having awesome things happen in combat is a big part of my attraction to the system, especially when I'm a player.
So a power that lets the rogue hit a target and push them three squares before the target and all adjacent enemies go prone is cinematic gold. There is very technical language that translates into 'your bowling with the bad guy' and its easily explained as drop kicks or other cool moves. Most of the time Push, Pulls and Slides are a fantastic addition to the narrative of the combat.
The problem is that a handful of powers, instead of adding to the cinematic nature of an awesome combat instead suddenly dump us out of the scene and and back into a bunch of people sitting around the table trying to explain how an event that makes no sense some how works. Thus the problem with a power like Come and Get It is it kills the narrative. If you have a specific power that is doing this over and over again then the problem is with the power.
I encountered a variation of this problem early in my play experience. The idea that a fighter could have an attack that he only used once in a day broke my immersion. I had a few semesters of beginner's fencing and the idea that you would learn a technique that had a limit of one day seemed absurd. The breakthrough came when I changed the way I thought about how the martial classes use powers and its an approach that relies heavily on a narrative perspective.
When a fighter uses his daily power, that doesn't represent as much of a conscious decision to try the attack as it represents the circumstances of a fluid combat aligning to allow him make the attempt. In other combats later in the day, the opportunity doesn't present itself for him to attack the same way again.
For me, this seemed a more realistic interpretation that ligned up with my experiences in fencing. You might learn how to "take 6", but if your opponent's blade wasn't in the right place or they were too far away or you just weren't ready then you couldn't make the attempt. You might only have one or two chances during a match to even try it. This doesn't hold for every power (at-wills for example), but I've found that since I started thinking of them this way and explained it to others, my group has not had a problem with powers breaking game emmersion.
How does this apply to the discussion at hand? Its not perfect, but if you think of combat being a dynamic scene, Come and Get It could represent a fighter's proclivity for spending an entire combat spewing insults to everything he fights. When the wizard finally has had enough and senses an opening to smack the fighter in the mouth to shut him up, the fighter takes his chance and lets fly with his attack. Everything fits within the narrative, but it requires a significant investment in thought on the part of players so YMMV.
The problem is that a handful of powers, instead of adding to the cinematic nature of an awesome combat instead suddenly dump us out of the scene and and back into a bunch of people sitting around the table trying to explain how an event that makes no sense some how works. Thus the problem with a power like Come and Get It is it kills the narrative. If you have a specific power that is doing this over and over again then the problem is with the power.And, honestly, I think the issue with Come and Get It is not that "it doesn't make sense" and more that part of the power is automatic.
Think about it - if the power had a seperate attack vs Will, and creatures only approached the Fighter if that hit, would people have as big an issue with it? We'd actually have an in-game representation of the fighter successfully taunting the enemy to close in.
Thus, I think the problem with Come and Get It is implementation more than concept.
I like the fix you implemented, and it makes perfect sense.
How does this apply to the discussion at hand? Its not perfect, but if you think of combat being a dynamic scene, Come and Get It could represent a fighter's proclivity for spending an entire combat spewing insults to everything he fights. When the wizard finally has had enough and senses an opening to smack the fighter in the mouth to shut him up, the fighter takes his chance and lets fly with his attack. Everything fits within the narrative, but it requires a significant investment in thought on the part of players so YMMV.
Which actually brings us back to one of the issues with Come and Get It. If it where some kind of power that had equal utility at many points in a fight, and most powers are like this, then it would be easier to explain and less jarring.
The problem is the power might as well have 'use this power first' in the written description. Its pretty much the opening move for the parties defender in the main because its just about perfect in the role. It forces all the enemies to clump and glues them to the defender which is pretty much what any party wants to be happening.
However that invariably means that this difficult to interpret power is always, always, the opening scene in our combat drama. Which is exactly when its most difficult to explain and the fact that it might not make sense is most jarring. It essentially starts things off on the wrong foot in just about every combat.
My bet is if the power only worked on bloodied enemies we'd not be talking about it, not so much because it some how made sense but because it flowed well and seemed to make sense in the narratives of our combat scenes when it was finally used. In essence if the move took place in the middle of combat it'd not necessarily make more sense but it'd be easier for the DM and players to 'find the story' that let it just flow with the scene.
As it stands its already a bit jarring just to go to Combat in D&D. There is already this pause to set everything up that makes it tricky to transition from the immersive scene where you encountered whatever it is your about to fight to the mechanics of actually starting a combat and on to the narrative that is that combat scene. Come and Get It adds to the problem of recapturing the narrative while most powers do the reverse and instead make catching a hold of the narrative easier.
With powers that are always used (under certain situations), it is up to DM to mix up the encounters to force the players to re-think, or draw from a new bag of tricks. I never get as detailed on how powers affect narrative, except for NPCs when designing encounters. I never found “Come and Get It” interfering with narrative beyond being a signature move for a fighter.
The only other change that makes sense, in addition to changing “Come and Get It” to a will attack, is to push instead of pull. Then you can call it "Get Out of My Way". As I stated previously, martial powers will always be the step child, where realism will often clash with game mechanics.
I had a similar problem with a druid power I believe is call "Cull the Herd", where the power is based on a howl (as flavor) that pulls creatures, when the effect should be push. However, I did not force the player to change it.
In end, WOTC should allow adding new classes, and modifying existing ones in the character builder. For me, that would mute any arguments, as I can add house rules as appropriate. If done right, you could share them as well.
In end, WOTC should allow adding new classes, and modifying existing ones in the character builder. For me, that would mute any arguments, as I can add house rules as appropriate. If done right, you could share them as well.
Well no argument from me on this front.
So Come and Get It just came up in my game (new newbie is making a fighter). I just said no - not allowing that one power. Seems like the easiest and most straightforward way to get around the issue.
Pretty much what i do.
As a police officer with a modicum of self defense traing i know all sorts of tricks to get suspects to move how i want them to, using foot work, talking etc. So i'n down with a lot of the fighter powers that move people arround.
Yet i can't in even the most outlandish of circumstances think of an insult or trick that would cause an archer aiming at a guy with a sword to run ten feet and throw himself on the blade, not just shoot the bastard.
There are litterally three books full of viable fighter powers at this point, not counting dragon articles or darksun. He can pick one of the ones that doesn't defy all logic in certain circumstances.
I'm with you on this being a problem unique to the martial power sourse though, all the other power sources allow you to just shrug your shoulders go "its magick".
Martial powers, on the other hand, seriously needs to consider their realism
I was posting this same thread on the WOTC forum, and there was a large camp on that forum that basically say that 4E is a gamist game and that therefore the physics of the game world are based on the rules, and our "common sense" has no merit in such a system. You accept that something works because it is in the rules and you must use your imagination to figure out how you want to fluff it.
For example, one poster was contending that if the rules had no rules for falling damage you wouldn't take falling damage, and that would be part of the physics of the game world.
So what make sense is defined entirely by the rules and has nothing to do with our own "arbitrary" (what he referred to it as) logic.
If it's in the rules it makes sense, and it makes sense because it's in the rules.
Ergo a bunch of archers suddenly rushing a fighter via Come and Get it makes sense because it's in the rules.
I could understand his point, but it certainly isn't how I'd want to run a game.
I was posting this same thread on the WOTC forum, and there was a large camp on that forum that basically say that 4E is a gamist game and that therefore the physics of the game world are based on the rules, and our "common sense" has no merit in such a system. You accept that something works because it is in the rules and you must use your imagination to figure out how you want to fluff it.
For example, one poster was contending that if the rules had no rules for falling damage you wouldn't take falling damage, and that would be part of the physics of the game world.
So what make sense is defined entirely by the rules and has nothing to do with our own "arbitrary" (what he referred to it as) logic.
If it's in the rules it makes sense, and it makes sense because it's in the rules.
Ergo a bunch of archers suddenly rushing a fighter via Come and Get it makes sense because it's in the rules.
I could understand his point, but it certainly isn't how I'd want to run a game.
I have a similar view (although I'm perhaps less comfortable with it than the guy you're quoting). There are a bunch of 4th edition rules which play a little odd if you treat them as a simulation of how things would be in our world (like counting range diagonally resulting in a ranger's 'closest enemy' being clearly further away than another enemy - there are plenty more).
Although we prefer a more 'simulationist view' there comes a point when you have to compromise between the rules and your playstyle (the same compromise happens in reverse if you try to play a heroic/cinematic campaign using a simulation-based sytem like rolemaster or somesuch).
FWIW, our approach is to just ignore it - "Come and Get It" is pretty much an auto-pick for fighters in our group. We just gloss past it and 'try not to think aobut it' when it happens - same as some of the peculiar distance rulings which come up (forced movement being another area where we've found some hard-to-justify-realistically rulings).
I was posting this same thread on the WOTC forum, and there was a large camp on that forum that basically say that 4E is a gamist game and that therefore the physics of the game world are based on the rules, and our "common sense" has no merit in such a system. You accept that something works because it is in the rules and you must use your imagination to figure out how you want to fluff it.
For example, one poster was contending that if the rules had no rules for falling damage you wouldn't take falling damage, and that would be part of the physics of the game world.
So what make sense is defined entirely by the rules and has nothing to do with our own "arbitrary" (what he referred to it as) logic.
If it's in the rules it makes sense, and it makes sense because it's in the rules.
Ergo a bunch of archers suddenly rushing a fighter via Come and Get it makes sense because it's in the rules.
I could understand his point, but it certainly isn't how I'd want to run a game.
I don't really agree with this view point. I mean I recognize that the game is not realistic in terms of simulating medieval combat but it does a pretty good job of simulating stuff that could happen in a Lord of the Rings movie.
Steve Geddes points out that there are other anomalies as well and I agree that they exist but for me its about whether they intrude on the suspension of disbelief. When I learned that everything was going to be measured in squares I thought that would actually be a significant issue for me but it really hasn't been. I mostly don't notice the anomaly and it really makes calculating area effects and movement a lot faster.
So there is an element of trade offs between 'realism' and ease of use (the common hp being the quintessential example) but none of that really seems to address the issues with Come and Get it...whats being traded away is a single power from a list of a dozen or some such. If not using that one power helps everyone maintain their suspension of disbelief, well that's a no brainier for me.
For me it is about achieving the narrative tone I want to set in my game. I don't like my game to be over the top cinematic, so powers like Archer's Staircase really rub me the wrong way, as does Come and Get it in some situations, so I guess my thing would be to try to at least tell the player up front that I don't want that power in the game because it really throws off the tone I'm going for or in the case of Come and Get it, I might say that you can take it, but if you're in a situation where you can fluff its function in a way that will maintain the tone of the game then I might not allow it to function under that circumstance.
Before I would deny a power, I would have to review it in the context of related powers for the class. If it offered something unique in comparison, I would modify the offending portion, while trying to maintain the rest.
So for "come and get it", I would remove the pull, maintain the area burst 1, and the effect to mark enemies within the defined pull range. The flavor text would be the creatures notice the fighter hacking everyone around him or her, so while distracted if they attack someone else, they are -2 to hit. If adjacent, they suffer the consequences of AOO, shifting, etc.
Before I would deny a power, I would have to review it in the context of related powers for the class. If it offered something unique in comparison, I would modify the offending portion, while trying to maintain the rest.
So for "come and get it", I would remove the pull, maintain the area burst 1, and the effect to mark enemies within the defined pull range. The flavor text would be the creatures notice the fighter hacking everyone around him or her, so while distracted if they attack someone else, they are -2 to hit. If adjacent, they suffer the consequences of AOO, shifting, etc.
If WotC let me do customizations in the character builder I'd probably just fix the power - but they don't making banning it much easier then me trying to rig up a new home made card.
For me it is about achieving the narrative tone I want to set in my game. I don't like my game to be over the top cinematic, so powers like Archer's Staircase really rub me the wrong way, as does Come and Get it in some situations, so I guess my thing would be to try to at least tell the player up front that I don't want that power in the game because it really throws off the tone I'm going for or in the case of Come and Get it, I might say that you can take it, but if you're in a situation where you can fluff its function in a way that will maintain the tone of the game then I might not allow it to function under that circumstance.
Now you have more difficult to solve issue. Your swimming against the tide in this case as its pretty clear they where going for fantasy action movie when they designed the system. What your hoping to avoid is likely what the designers where usually trying to evoke.
Yeah I like DnD and the mythology, monsters etc... but the current version is a little cinematic for my tastes. I don't think the designers needed to consult with Michael Bay before making this game. I like warhammer, but it's almost too gritty for my liking, so ideally I'd want something more in the middle. Pathfinder fits the bill nicely in that department, but even though I enjoyed playing 3E there are lot things I didn't like about the system, and I feel they made a lot of improvements to the balance of the game with 4E, so overall I prefer that ruleset, even though it has been starting to annoy me a bit lately.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
PH, I loved your 3.5 story hour, but I totally understand the high-level stuff melting your brain after a while. I haven't really got into the 4e one though it sounds like you're all having fun. If you start playing PF I'll be overjoyed purely because you might post a story hour that fits my game style/ ruleset again!
When we played 4e we had great difficulty explaining the powers, since we err on the side of realism in our games too. I got so frustrated I explicitely told the DM I would make up my own fluff (worms flying into brains, headaches, scary noises, whatever) and use the power stats as written. That helped a lot and I started enjoying the game a lot more.
With the Come and Get It example above, my vote goes to the suggestion that he seems to stumble and leave an opening that even a wizard can't resist taking advantage of... shaking his left hand in pain then holding his shield so that his armpit/groin* is exposed, but only from the wizards perspective...
*(armpit for dagger, groin for staff)
Then .. tada! A feint! Wallop!
PH, I loved your 3.5 story hour, but I totally understand the high-level stuff melting your brain after a while. I haven't really got into the 4e one though it sounds like you're all having fun. If you start playing PF I'll be overjoyed purely because you might post a story hour that fits my game style/ ruleset again!
When we played 4e we had great difficulty explaining the powers, since we err on the side of realism in our games too. I got so frustrated I explicitely told the DM I would make up my own fluff (worms flying into brains, headaches, scary noises, whatever) and use the power stats as written. That helped a lot and I started enjoying the game a lot more.
With the Come and Get It example above, my vote goes to the suggestion that he seems to stumble and leave an opening that even a wizard can't resist taking advantage of... shaking his left hand in pain then holding his shield so that his armpit/groin* is exposed, but only from the wizards perspective...
*(armpit for dagger, groin for staff)Then .. tada! A feint! Wallop!
...There are people that don't make up their own fluff for when they use powers? o_O