Alas 4E I knew you well.


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
joela wrote:
Steerpike7 wrote:


Anyone else having any trouble finding a 4E group?
Nope. I just asked around. You may want to see if there's a local Meetup group (www.meetup.com) in your area. I found several 4E games that way.

WOW!!!..Thank you..you are awesome...I have been here in Germany for 2 years now and it has been like pulling teeth to find a group... That page is wonders!! Found a Bunch!!.. Lets just hope they are willing to play in English..

Joe... you are my New hero...


Mactaka wrote:
We got into an argument in KotS when those of us more into story wanted to press on to prevent the rift from opening, while the others, out of daily powers and low on healing surges wanted to bug out and rest a day. We pressed on and won in a long-drawn out slog fest, but it didn't help when the GM said, oh..it wouldn't have mattered if you had left and come back...booo on story driven game play, I guess.

Wow. Thats pretty rough. Really the DM should have just smiled knowingly and refused to reveal whether or not resting would have made any difference IMO.


Bleach wrote:


For example, the beguiler, dread necromancer and the warmage are pretty much palette swaps of classes. The mechanics between the three are dead on, but the difference in powers (spells) and class features gives entirely different play experience.

I think this is a really good example and very much in line with my experience. Playing the Cleric has been a blast but I'm often desperately trying to keep the party running. Its got some similariteis with playing a 3.5 cleric except that know I'm doing stuff like evaluating if one of the Baddies can be dropped with one hit so I can Channel Raven Queens Blessing and let an ally use a healing surge. I'm still the back up fighter if the real meat shields just can't take it any more while the Fighters are still meat shields and rangers still generally try and not be pinned down.

None of the classes really feel the same to me, especially considering how heavily 4E races seem to play into the mechanics. They do all use the same basic building blocks but that is sort of like saying all characters in Hero System or Gurps are the same because they all use build points.


I saw just as much meta-gaming in 3.5. Truth be told, with some groups, I have seen just as much meta-gaming in Hero. I do not buy into the ‘4e is gamist’ complaint.

Sovereign Court

Yeah 3.5 does have some overly gamist elements that I think it can do without (evasion, I'm looking at you), but these can be pushed to the side quite easily if PC's get immersed in their characters and the story. 4th edition throws the metagame thinking and gamist elements in your face like a glowing neon sign. No matter how hard you try, you can't overlook it. Everyone is shifting squares on a battlegrid, and the paladin has laser beams shooting from the sky to punish enemies who don't attack him for no other reason than he is a "defender" and has to be a more attractive target than the wizard.

The Exchange

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Yeah 3.5 does have some overly gamist elements that I think it can do without (evasion, I'm looking at you), but these can be pushed to the side quite easily if PC's get immersed in their characters and the story. 4th edition throws the metagame thinking and gamist elements in your face like a glowing neon sign. No matter how hard you try, you can't overlook it. Everyone is shifting squares on a battlegrid, and the paladin has laser beams shooting from the sky to punish enemies who don't attack him for no other reason than he is a "defender" and has to be a more attractive target than the wizard.

I disagree. All games use terms and actions in their mechanics unless you play a purely narrative game with no mechanics at all. Any game's mechanics and rule melt into the background with increasing familiarity and use.


CourtFool wrote:
I saw just as much meta-gaming in 3.5. Truth be told, with some groups, I have seen just as much meta-gaming in Hero. I do not buy into the ‘4e is gamist’ complaint.

I don't think any particular ruleset is "gamist." Gamers are the ones who make the experience gamist. I could rape the crap out of 2.5 rules during creation and abuse the rules to turn it gamist or I could press for more simulationist; it all depends on what gamers do with their games. Some people either don't like, haven't been exposed to, or have less preference for non-gamist forms of play.

CWM makes a good point that the rules can fade into the background. The one flaw in that is the fact that there are gamers out there who don't want the rules to be "in the background". Some gamers want to use the rules as a steamroller or sledgehammer. This has been a reality as long as I can remember. If you dislike this style of gaming, do youself a favor and avoid those types of gamers.

I used to think Hero System was all number-crunching; I used to think 3e was for meta-gamers. I changed my mind after I became selective about the people I played with. All games are what we make them at our own tables. "Gamist" or "simulationist" should be terms used to describe gamers, not game systems.


I agree with Ixancoatl, for the most part. I would argue that some gamers want to use the rules as a steamroller or sledgehammer. To me, that has subtle negative implications.

Viewing role playing games as a game and viewing them as a story are equally valid. Some gamers wish to adhere to the letter of the law in order to achieve a victory. Some gamers wish to adhere to the spirit of the law in order to achieve immersion.

Any rule set can be pushed aside for greater immersion. I feel the same way about classes that WotC’s Nightmare feels about shifting squares.


Ixancoatl wrote:
I don't think any particular ruleset is "gamist." Gamers are the ones who make the experience gamist. I could rape the crap out of 2.5 rules during creation and abuse the rules to turn it gamist or I could press for more simulationist; it all depends on what gamers do with their games. Some people either don't like, haven't been exposed to, or have less preference for non-gamist forms of play.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just want to explore your point here. When I look at the rules for the Storyteller System (Vampire, Werewolf, etc), I see a system that is very non-gamist. Give me some examples if I am wrong, and I could be.

But looking at other systems with very specific rules about how mechanics work, I have to see that certain systems encourage "gamist" attitudes, while others do not. They may not encourage "simulationist" but they encourage a certain style of play nonetheless.


veector wrote:
Give me some examples if I am wrong, and I could be.

There are dice involved, no?

Sovereign Court

The play style of groups does have an influence on how "gamist" or "simulationist" a game appears to be. However, some game systems seem to encourage or even almost demand a gamist approach to the game. I believe 4th edition has pushed D&D farther to the gamist end of the spectrum than it has ever been. It's a deal breaker for some people. It seems a lot of people are becoming disinterested in 4E after just a few sessions because it doesn't "feel" like D&D to them. Could it be that the system is so gamist that it hinders becoming immersed in your character? In my experience, if you see your character just as miniature on a grid with a cetain combat "role" to play instead of a real individual with goals and motivations, it's really difficult to care about what happens to your character and eventually the game itself.

The Exchange

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The play style of groups does have an influence on how "gamist" or "simulationist" a game appears to be. However, some game systems seem to encourage or even almost demand a gamist approach to the game. I believe 4th edition has pushed D&D farther to the gamist end of the spectrum than it has ever been. It's a deal breaker for some people. It seems a lot of people are becoming disinterested in 4E after just a few sessions because it doesn't "feel" like D&D to them. Could it be that the system is so gamist that it hinders becoming immersed in your character? In my experience, if you see your character just as miniature on a grid with a cetain combat "role" to play instead of a real individual with goals and motivations, it's really difficult to care about what happens to your character and eventually the game itself.

It is only gamist if you play it that way. Try this - the next time a rogue uses a positioning strike have the player describe what actually happens - rinse, repeat.

Every RPG has mechanics of some form or another. All it takes is a little imaginative role playing and the gamist aspects will fade away.

If you do not like the game and/or you are unwilling to try to role play and narrate then any game will feel like an elaborate board game.

The Exchange

CourtFool wrote:
veector wrote:
Give me some examples if I am wrong, and I could be.
There are dice involved, no?

Yep yep. The only RPG I have ever encountered that did away with all gamist elements is the Adventures of Baron Munchausen and that is really just friends telling stories.


”WotC's Nightmare” wrote:
The play style of groups does have an influence on how "gamist" or "simulationist" a game appears to be. However, some game systems seem to encourage or even almost demand a gamist approach to the game.

Agreed.

”WotC's Nightmare” wrote:
I believe 4th edition has pushed D&D farther to the gamist end of the spectrum than it has ever been.

I disagree. I believe it is either the same as 3.5 or maybe even more towards simulationist by trying to be more ‘cinematic’.

”WotC's Nightmare” wrote:
It's a deal breaker for some people.

It’s a boon for some people.

”WotC's Nightmare” wrote:
It seems a lot of people are becoming disinterested in 4E after just a few sessions because it doesn't "feel" like D&D to them.

And that depends largely on how you define D&D. The most common argument I hear is that is does not “feel” like the D&D I prefer.

”WotC's Nightmare” wrote:
Could it be that the system is so gamist that it hinders becoming immersed in your character?

I believe a system can be. Again, I would argue that it is a matter of preference.

”WotC's Nightmare” wrote:
In my experience, if you see your character just as miniature on a grid with a cetain combat "role" to play instead of a real individual with goals and motivations, it's really difficult to care about what happens to your character and eventually the game itself.

If I am not mistaken, miniatures and grids only come out when the combat starts. How much individual goal and motivation is involved in any combat beyond surviving and winning? If your game focuses solely on combat, I would view your game as very gamist to the point it hinders becoming immersed in my character.


Didn't mean to threadjack.

New Thread


Steerpike7 wrote:
Anyone else having any trouble finding a 4E group? Or did your existing group just switch over? Advice??

Several folks in my group bought the core rules. We played three sessions, one at 1st level, one at 5th level, and one at 15th level.

The game feels like Dragonball Z come to the table top.

We are switching back to 3.5.

In service,

Rich
[b]The Original Dr. Games' Site


Steerpike7 wrote:
I'm in Missouri. Split my time between Kansas City and the middle of the state :)

My group in Kansas City MO is looking for a new player/DM. We'll be switching to 4e sometime in Sep/Oct, once our RotRL campaign is done. We play on Saturdays usually starting at 11 AM or 12 PM and running 3 to 5 hours.

Drop me a line if you’re interested {sfarmer4 (at) kc (dot) rr (dot) com


Gotta admit that between work and a recent back injury, I haven't played much in the last 60 days. So, I did what anyone would do, I went game-shopping.

Went to the local huge game store. One 4e campaign still looking for players and three 3e games still going from before 4e's release.

Went to the local large comic book store that also sells games. They advertise a weekly session to help people make up 4e characters and get to know the rules. According to the manager, no one has shown up since the first session right after the rules release.

So yeah, it might just be here, but you are not the only one having a hard time finding a 4e group.

*shrug*


You might want to ask about 4E groups on other sites such as EnWorld.

The Paizo boards have a reputation as being rabidly anti-4e, so few 4e players will bother to read them.

Geoff.

Dark Archive

My biggest problem is getting my players to invest in the new player's handbook. Only one out of five of my current players owns one, and that really tends to slow things down at the table... And, of course, people aren't reading the manual at home either, dreaming up new characters.


All I can say is, I tried 4E with my regular gaming group. They hated it. My old gaming group wants to get back together and have me DM, but they have voted it be a Pathfinder based game. I found out my neighbors down the street want to play D&D, which is cool, but they only want to play 3.5. Heck, I had a guy on the bus try to get me into his group (I was reading a Dungeon Crawl Classic), and they had tried 4th Ed, but hated it, so it would have to be a 3.5 or Pathfinder game. I know quite a few people who have bought one or more of the 4th Ed books, but they are never going to use them. I can't even get my family to play it in "Beer and Pretzels" mode. Is anybody really playing this game, and if so, where? (Not at my local game shop, either...)

Dark Archive

crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The play style of groups does have an influence on how "gamist" or "simulationist" a game appears to be. However, some game systems seem to encourage or even almost demand a gamist approach to the game. I believe 4th edition has pushed D&D farther to the gamist end of the spectrum than it has ever been. It's a deal breaker for some people. It seems a lot of people are becoming disinterested in 4E after just a few sessions because it doesn't "feel" like D&D to them. Could it be that the system is so gamist that it hinders becoming immersed in your character? In my experience, if you see your character just as miniature on a grid with a cetain combat "role" to play instead of a real individual with goals and motivations, it's really difficult to care about what happens to your character and eventually the game itself.

It is only gamist if you play it that way. Try this - the next time a rogue uses a positioning strike have the player describe what actually happens - rinse, repeat.

Every RPG has mechanics of some form or another. All it takes is a little imaginative role playing and the gamist aspects will fade away.

If you do not like the game and/or you are unwilling to try to role play and narrate then any game will feel like an elaborate board game.

Yeah, well, maybe it would help if I actually would "get" how some of the powers (such as the rogue's 'Tricky Strike') actually work... I mean, try explaining how a gargantuan dragon or a mindless golem is shifted 15 feet when the rogue's dagger hits them. In fact, I completely agree with WN -- it's a "deal-breaker" for me in 4E. I could get away with it, *if* I throw myself completely into metagaming and just "playing out" the combats like I would play a chess game, but that would make combats feels more or less like a boardgame.

Yes, each RPG system has mechanics, but most of them tend to encourage and emphasize certain styles to play *though* these mechanics. I don't think 4E offers very much (via its mechanics) for a "simulationist". And I don't think the gamist elements in 4E will "fade away", no matter how hard I closed my eyes and repeated a mantra to make them vanish -- they're coded into the system so strongly, that it would take heavy-handed houseruling to lessen their impact on gameplay.


Mactaka wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

KOTS should have had some sort of thing to pressure the PCs into acting quicker. Perhaps when they found out about the whole story, maybe a large storm cloud over the ruins that kept growing larger, creating the sense of what's his name's progress... or something.

The Exchange

Asgetrion wrote:
Yeah, well, maybe it would help if I actually would "get" how some of the powers (such as the rogue's 'Tricky Strike') actually work... I mean, try explaining how a gargantuan dragon or a mindless golem is shifted 15 feet when the rogue's dagger hits them.

Well, the description says it all - "Through a series of feints and lures, you maneuver your foe right where you want him."

The rouge does not physically move anything.

Sovereign Court

What about the worst case I have seen? The paladin's divine challenge. Why should the paladin's deity shoot laser beams (radiant damage) from the sky to punish enemies for "not" attacking one of their followers? If they are going to smite someone, shouldn't they smite someone for "attacking" the paladin? This rule is so gamist it is laughable. There is no possible explanation for this that wouldn't sound completely ridiculous. It exists for one reason: To make enemies want to attack the palading so he can fulfil his role as a "defender".

Dark Archive

Dragnmoon wrote:
joela wrote:
Steerpike7 wrote:


Anyone else having any trouble finding a 4E group?
Nope. I just asked around. You may want to see if there's a local Meetup group (www.meetup.com) in your area. I found several 4E games that way.

WOW!!!..Thank you..you are awesome...I have been here in Germany for 2 years now and it has been like pulling teeth to find a group... That page is wonders!! Found a Bunch!!.. Lets just hope they are willing to play in English..

Joe... you are my New hero...

Whoa. Glad to help out.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
What about the worst case I have seen? The paladin's divine challenge. Why should the paladin's deity shoot laser beams (radiant damage) from the sky to punish enemies for "not" attacking one of their followers? If they are going to smite someone, shouldn't they smite someone for "attacking" the paladin? This rule is so gamist it is laughable. There is no possible explanation for this that wouldn't sound completely ridiculous. It exists for one reason: To make enemies want to attack the palading so he can fulfil his role as a "defender".

Off the top of my head, the Paladin vows to protect his allies from one opponent, and his god gives him the backup.

Cheers! :)

Sovereign Court

David Marks wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
What about the worst case I have seen? The paladin's divine challenge. Why should the paladin's deity shoot laser beams (radiant damage) from the sky to punish enemies for "not" attacking one of their followers? If they are going to smite someone, shouldn't they smite someone for "attacking" the paladin? This rule is so gamist it is laughable. There is no possible explanation for this that wouldn't sound completely ridiculous. It exists for one reason: To make enemies want to attack the palading so he can fulfil his role as a "defender".

Off the top of my head, the Paladin vows to protect his allies from one opponent, and his god gives him the backup.

Cheers! :)

I understand you like 4e, but there are some rules so ridiculous you can't possibly defend them. Just because you like the system (as do I) doesn't mean you need to defend every little thing about it. I personally think the marking is ridiculous as well.

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Yeah, well, maybe it would help if I actually would "get" how some of the powers (such as the rogue's 'Tricky Strike') actually work... I mean, try explaining how a gargantuan dragon or a mindless golem is shifted 15 feet when the rogue's dagger hits them.

Well, the description says it all - "Through a series of feints and lures, you maneuver your foe right where you want him."

The rouge does not physically move anything.

I don't know... I understand how a rogue maneuvers a goblin, but not, say, a hulking tarrasque.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
What about the worst case I have seen? The paladin's divine challenge. Why should the paladin's deity shoot laser beams (radiant damage) from the sky to punish enemies for "not" attacking one of their followers? If they are going to smite someone, shouldn't they smite someone for "attacking" the paladin? This rule is so gamist it is laughable. There is no possible explanation for this that wouldn't sound completely ridiculous. It exists for one reason: To make enemies want to attack the palading so he can fulfil his role as a "defender".

The paladin builds up a charge of holy energy. The target instinctively knows that the only way to avoid getting zapped by that charge is to attack the paladin to disrupt the charge. It is not that different from people in 3.x attacking spellcasters in hopes of disrupting their spells, except that even unintelligent beings know to do so.

The Exchange

Mr. Slaad wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Yeah, well, maybe it would help if I actually would "get" how some of the powers (such as the rogue's 'Tricky Strike') actually work... I mean, try explaining how a gargantuan dragon or a mindless golem is shifted 15 feet when the rogue's dagger hits them.

Well, the description says it all - "Through a series of feints and lures, you maneuver your foe right where you want him."

The rouge does not physically move anything.

I don't know... I understand how a rogue maneuvers a goblin, but not, say, a hulking tarrasque.

Lure = bait.

The Exchange

Mr. Slaad wrote:
David Marks wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
What about the worst case I have seen? The paladin's divine challenge. Why should the paladin's deity shoot laser beams (radiant damage) from the sky to punish enemies for "not" attacking one of their followers? If they are going to smite someone, shouldn't they smite someone for "attacking" the paladin? This rule is so gamist it is laughable. There is no possible explanation for this that wouldn't sound completely ridiculous. It exists for one reason: To make enemies want to attack the palading so he can fulfil his role as a "defender".

Off the top of my head, the Paladin vows to protect his allies from one opponent, and his god gives him the backup.

Cheers! :)

I understand you like 4e, but there are some rules so ridiculous you can't possibly defend them. Just because you like the system (as do I) doesn't mean you need to defend every little thing about it. I personally think the marking is ridiculous as well.

It does not sound ridiculous to me. If a paladin is the protector then why wouldn't his god provide him the ability to keep an aggressor form attacking others?

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
Mr. Slaad wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Yeah, well, maybe it would help if I actually would "get" how some of the powers (such as the rogue's 'Tricky Strike') actually work... I mean, try explaining how a gargantuan dragon or a mindless golem is shifted 15 feet when the rogue's dagger hits them.

Well, the description says it all - "Through a series of feints and lures, you maneuver your foe right where you want him."

The rouge does not physically move anything.

I don't know... I understand how a rogue maneuvers a goblin, but not, say, a hulking tarrasque.
Lure = bait.

What about moving the tarrasque in the opposite direction? What if the tarrasque is marked by the paladin and isn't baited by the rogue?

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
Mr. Slaad wrote:
David Marks wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
What about the worst case I have seen? The paladin's divine challenge. Why should the paladin's deity shoot laser beams (radiant damage) from the sky to punish enemies for "not" attacking one of their followers? If they are going to smite someone, shouldn't they smite someone for "attacking" the paladin? This rule is so gamist it is laughable. There is no possible explanation for this that wouldn't sound completely ridiculous. It exists for one reason: To make enemies want to attack the palading so he can fulfil his role as a "defender".

Off the top of my head, the Paladin vows to protect his allies from one opponent, and his god gives him the backup.

Cheers! :)

I understand you like 4e, but there are some rules so ridiculous you can't possibly defend them. Just because you like the system (as do I) doesn't mean you need to defend every little thing about it. I personally think the marking is ridiculous as well.
It does not sound ridiculous to me. If a paladin is the protector then why wouldn't his god provide him the ability to keep an aggressor form attacking others?

It has grown on me a little.


Mr. Slaad wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Mr. Slaad wrote:


I understand you like 4e, but there are some rules so ridiculous you can't possibly defend them. Just because you like the system (as do I) doesn't mean you need to defend every little thing about it. I personally think the marking is ridiculous as well.
It does not sound ridiculous to me. If a paladin is the protector then why wouldn't his god provide him the ability to keep an aggressor form attacking others?
It has grown on me a little.

I don't defend every little thing about 4E, but in terms of difficult rationalizing an in-game explanation for rule affects goes, I don't think Divine Challenge is really that egregious of a violator.

I'm glad my explanation has helped you visualize what's going on however.

Cheers! :)

Scarab Sages

crosswiredmind wrote:
It does not sound ridiculous to me. If a paladin is the protector then why wouldn't his god provide him the ability to keep an aggressor form attacking others?

You're assuming a God or Paladin that wants to protect. Why would a Chaotic Evil paladin of, say, a God of Destruction, Chaos, and Torment want to protect, for example?

The Exchange

Mr. Slaad wrote:
Lure = bait.
What about moving the tarrasque in the opposite direction? What if the tarrasque is marked by the paladin and isn't baited by the rogue?

The movement from Trick Strike is 1 square. It could be a feint or a lure. The rogue simply uses trickery to get the target to move a very short distance. The fact that the tarrasque is marked by a paladin makes no difference.

The Exchange

Karui Kage wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
It does not sound ridiculous to me. If a paladin is the protector then why wouldn't his god provide him the ability to keep an aggressor form attacking others?
You're assuming a God or Paladin that wants to protect. Why would a Chaotic Evil paladin of, say, a God of Destruction, Chaos, and Torment want to protect, for example?

In that case the god would want to keep the kill for one of his or her own.

The Exchange

David Marks wrote:
I don't defend every little thing about 4E, but in terms of difficult rationalizing an in-game explanation for rule affects goes, I don't think Divine Challenge is really that egregious of a violator.

Same here. I have a much harder time swallowing the ever growing bag of hit points or bags of holding - they have always bugged the crap out of me.

The Exchange

Mr. Slaad wrote:
It has grown on me a little.

Cool. Just to show you that I am not an unforgiving fanboy - the thing that really bugs me is that any target can only have one active mark. Why does the Paladin loose his mark just because the fighter or rogue has come along and marked the target.

That make no sense at all.

The Exchange

crosswiredmind wrote:
David Marks wrote:
I don't defend every little thing about 4E, but in terms of difficult rationalizing an in-game explanation for rule affects goes, I don't think Divine Challenge is really that egregious of a violator.
Same here. I have a much harder time swallowing the ever growing bag of hit points or bags of holding - they have always bugged the crap out of me.

Yeah, kinda the same reason I quit messing with the Final Fantasy games, 3000 points of damage and the baddie is only down by 1/5th of his hit points. Seems a bit over the top.


crosswiredmind wrote:

Why does the Paladin loose his mark just because the fighter or rogue has come along and marked the target.

That make no sense at all.

Yeah that one gets to me as well - though its pretty clear that its needed, marking seems like its going to be a sizable part of the game, if they don't have a rule like this in play from day one they'd regret it three years and 20 splat books down the road 'cause we'd have party combo's built around putting 5 different marks on a monster and watching as its forced to violate 4 of them in order to full fill a 5th.

It'd be too helpful for the mages and such as well. As it stands if you ignore the mark you take some kind of penalty - but you certianly can choose to ignore it. There is a cost but that cost might be worth it if the pay off was the wizard as a tasty snack.

Dark Archive

crosswiredmind wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Yeah, well, maybe it would help if I actually would "get" how some of the powers (such as the rogue's 'Tricky Strike') actually work... I mean, try explaining how a gargantuan dragon or a mindless golem is shifted 15 feet when the rogue's dagger hits them.

Well, the description says it all - "Through a series of feints and lures, you maneuver your foe right where you want him."

The rouge does not physically move anything.

What about Ranger's 'Hammer Shot' or 'Split the Arrow' (or whatever that power was)? Or the Warlord's Epic Power which allowed him to shift *all* foes 15 ft. in a 60 ft. burst? No, I don't buy any "you slowly maneuver your foes..." -type of explanation, as the effect is instantaneous, and any "slow maneuvering" would have been evident on the grid during previous rounds.


Asgetrion wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Yeah, well, maybe it would help if I actually would "get" how some of the powers (such as the rogue's 'Tricky Strike') actually work... I mean, try explaining how a gargantuan dragon or a mindless golem is shifted 15 feet when the rogue's dagger hits them.

Well, the description says it all - "Through a series of feints and lures, you maneuver your foe right where you want him."

The rouge does not physically move anything.

What about Ranger's 'Hammer Shot' or 'Split the Arrow' (or whatever that power was)? Or the Warlord's Epic Power which allowed him to shift *all* foes 15 ft. in a 60 ft. burst? No, I don't buy any "you slowly maneuver your foes..." -type of explanation, as the effect is instantaneous, and any "slow maneuvering" would have been evident on the grid during previous rounds.

You seem to presuming that all powers move people for the same reason. Thats not the presumption from my reading. The wizard might move some one via magic, the rogue through trickery and the fighter through brute force. Its not even required that a given classes powers all move people for the same reason.

Scarab Sages

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


You seem to presuming that all powers move people for the same reason. Thats not the presumption from my reading. The wizard might move some one via magic, the rogue through trickery and the fighter through brute force. Its not even required that a given classes powers all move people for the same reason.

I don't think he is complaining about the consistency or lack thereof (imagined or not). I think he means that he doesn't understand how non-magical classes like the warlord can move an opponent in some of the ways they describe.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


You seem to presuming that all powers move people for the same reason. Thats not the presumption from my reading. The wizard might move some one via magic, the rogue through trickery and the fighter through brute force. Its not even required that a given classes powers all move people for the same reason.
I don't think he is complaining about the consistency or lack thereof (imagined or not). I think he means that he doesn't understand how non-magical classes like the warlord can move an opponent in some of the ways they describe.

OK. What was said could be construed by my interpretation but I certianly see how one could come to your interpretation as well now that I look at it.

In any case I feel that if your looking for a consistent physics based explanation for how a power accomplishes what it accomplishes then its going to get very hard to immerse yourself in the game. I don't feel that 4E is really making any serous attempt to handle powers from a hardcore physics based angle. I'd treat them as material that belongs in a summer blockbuster as I think that one will find that things flow much more smoothly if one plays their characters powers as being essentially cinematic.

Whats worked well at my table, in terms of melee speak and RPing during combat, is to take the outcome and use the fluff in the power as a starting point for the explanation. You might know that the Fighter just got the Dragon to shift 3 squares but its up to the fighters player to describe what happened to make the dragon move 15 feet. That explanation does not have to be the same every time the fighter uses that specific power. However, since your riffing off the powers fluff there tends to be strong similarities every time a specific power comes up. Its also very important for a player to know were to draw the line. Players get to describe their actions and the outcome of those actions up to a point but don't step on your DMs toes. Your not allowed to have the Dragon move because you caused a major cave in for example.

Its a little unlike what we are used to in D&D were, generally, the DM describes the outcome of all the players actions, but its been working well in the group I game with.

Scarab Sages

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


OK. What was said could be construed by my interpretation but I certianly see how one could come to your interpretation as well now that I look at it.

In any case I feel that if your looking for a consistent physics based explanation for how a power accomplishes what it accomplishes then its going to get very hard to immerse yourself in the game. I don't feel that 4E is really making any serous attempt to handle powers from a hardcore physics based angle. I'd treat them as material that belongs in a summer blockbuster as I think that one will find that things flow much more smoothly if one plays their characters powers as being essentially cinematic.

Whats worked well at my table, in terms of melee speak and RPing during combat, is to take the outcome and use the fluff in the power as a starting point for the explanation. You might know that the Fighter just got the Dragon to shift 3 squares but its up to the fighters player to describe what happened to make the dragon move 15 feet. That explanation does not have to be the same every time the fighter uses that specific power. However, since your riffing off the powers fluff there tends to be strong similarities every time a specific power comes up. Its also very important for a player to know were to draw the line. Players get to describe their actions and the outcome of those actions up to a point but don't step on your DMs toes. Your not...

Your point is actually quite valid - I don't enjoy 4th Edition that much, but if more people said things like this about it, it would make it clear to people what type of play you can expect from it. A very good summary. Even in my first session, I found I was doing this.

Now, I play Marvel FASERIP which is at an extreme end of the spectrum along the lines of what you are talking about (players narrating their actions in combat) - playing with some good experienced gamers is a blast, but without skill the game tends to get lost as no-one knows what to do. I've found that while 4th Edition doesn't have this problem (there are enough real rules to prevent confusion), I do find that playing with players not accustomed to their own narrative elements can make 4th Edition stale.


Jal Dorak wrote:


Now, I play Marvel FASERIP which is at an extreme end of the spectrum along the lines of what you are talking about (players narrating their actions in combat) - playing with some good experienced gamers is a blast, but without skill the game tends to get lost as no-one knows what to do. I've...

Wow...

You have my respect. I didn't know anyone FASERIPped any more.

I bow to your awesome degree of perseverance. :)


Jerry Wright wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:


Now, I play Marvel FASERIP which is at an extreme end of the spectrum along the lines of what you are talking about (players narrating their actions in combat) - playing with some good experienced gamers is a blast, but without skill the game tends to get lost as no-one knows what to do. I've...

Wow...

You have my respect. I didn't know anyone FASERIPped any more.

I bow to your awesome degree of perseverance. :)

Still FASERIPing to this day. FASERIP for the WIN!


Ditto on the MSHA (Re: Marvel Super Heroes Advanced, re: FASERIP). In fact, we just made new characters a few weeks ago (before me and my wife moved to a new house). As far as I'm concerned, the MSHA game is the *best* game system for heroics of any power level.

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Alas 4E I knew you well. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.