Is it AEDU or rather how the classes are built using AEDU?

So I've been trying to zero in on the real problem people have with AEDU.  Now I can't speak for everyone but I'm starting to think that it is not AEDU at all.  It is the way AEDU is used in 4e that is throwing a lot of people from earlier editions.



In past editions, a martial action was a martial action.   Any class could perform a martial action.  They just weren't as good at it if that was not their focus.  



Magic was also not absolutely distinctive to class.  There was a lot of cross pollination between classes.   Even clerics and wizards shared some magic.   It was more a matter of focus.



In 4e, each classes powers were strictly that classes powers.   In some ways this made life simple since you only had to look at what your class could do.  On the other hand, it also reduced the overall choices and choices are fun.   Now I will agree that mathematically, many of the powers were very similar but flavor wise I feel there was still a disconnect.



I am hoping in 5e that the number of class specific powers is greatly reduced.  Maybe not to zero as a few powers per class can add distinctiveness.  (e.g. laying on of hands for Paladins).   Instead I'd rather the powers be grouped by power source (yea I hate that martial is a "power" source but I don't have a better name for the whole group that includes martial).    Then let the classes focus to differing degrees on the power sources.



Maybe Fighters are super duper focused on martial whereas Paladins are focused on martial but also to a lesser degree on divine.   Clerics can be a balanced focus between martial and divine.  



Anyway, I see the lack of crossover as one of the things about AEDU that people dislike.  Does anyone else feel this way?

Here is a great blog by themormegil that explains why we had an edition war. narrativism vs simulationism

 HoBby Award Winner metagame dissonance (plot coupon)

dissociative mechanics (same as my own metagame dissonance. A great article.)

The Five Minute Workday Fallacy

My view on hit points

 In 4e, each classes powers were strictly that classes powers.   In some ways this made life simple since you only had to look at what your class could do.  On the other hand, it also reduced the overall choices and choices are fun.

Non-spell casters finally gained choices that werent flukes of chance or demanded so much focus then were undermined by immunities demanded by "martial" is "mundane" groupies.

Having cross class powers, shrug is not a biggy one way or the other.

Martial finally having choices that was a big deal

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


So I've been trying to zero in on the real problem people have with AEDU.




1.  Wizard isn't the BMOC anymore.

1.  It's different.

3.  Wizard isn't the BMOC anymore.

Cry Havoc!  And let slip the hogs of war!

 In 4e, each classes powers were strictly that classes powers.   In some ways this made life simple since you only had to look at what your class could do.  On the other hand, it also reduced the overall choices and choices are fun.

Non-spell casters finally gained choices that werent flukes of chance or demanded so much focus then were undermined by immunities demanded by "martial" is "mundane" groupies.

Having cross class powers, shrug is not a biggy one way or the other.

Martial finally having choices that was a big deal




While a valid issue Garthenos, I believe we have beat that horse on another thread (Gordian Knot).   While I do have issues with purely martial characters having dailies, it's not the only reason people dislike AEDU.   This topic is trying to address what I feel is a general aversion to the structure and not anything specific to a class.

@mattador666
We all agree it is different but what about the difference is bothering people.  I disagree that it is purely difference in and of itself.  

I also find the whole wizard thing tiring.  We know that some people are really upset with wizards in earlier editions of the game.  I might even say they are almost bitter about it.   Others while acknowledging there were issues still found those games really fun.  I'm in the latter camp.   This thread though isn't about that subject.

The gordian knot thread discusses the issue of martial characters and AEDU specifically.  Here I'm trying to view it from a higher level.  There is something about AEDU beyond just class.  Even caster classes have issues for some people.  I'm focusing on this universal issue and not on specific class issues.
Nah, pretty much it makes all classes too mechanical. I wouldn't play DDN if they kept AEDU as part of core. Almost 4 years of playing with it was long enough IMO.

DDN should be able to evolve mechanical power without relying on an artificial meta game construct to do so.
DDN should be able to evolve mechanical power without relying on an artificial meta game construct to do so.



All mechanics are meta...  every single one.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

DDN should be able to evolve mechanical power without relying on an artificial meta game construct to do so.



All mechanics are meta...  every single one.

DING!

Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.

@ReaperTatt
Well at-will and daily have been in D&D from the beginning.  I agree that for some classes (non-magical) even encounter powers are problematic from a believability standpoint (at least for many people).  But I think encounter powers could be tweaked so that they are more acceptable without too much effort.

To me the only thing that can limit the use of a martial power to any martial character is the following...

1.  Skill.  Evidenced by levels or training or attack bonus etc...  It should be attainable though at least in theory.
2.  Endurance.  You can only do so many tiring things.  These fall into a pool though and shouldn't be limited individually.

 
In 4e, each classes powers were strictly that classes powers.   In some ways this made life simple since you only had to look at what your class could do.  On the other hand, it also reduced the overall choices and choices are fun.   Now I will agree that mathematically, many of the powers were very similar but flavor wise I feel there was still a disconnect.



Yeah I agree.

I think each class having it's specific list of powers was a mistake. While having options is great I don't think it was necessary to break it up that way.

It caused a HUGE bloat and can create choice paralysis during character creation and level up.

I'd say grouping "powers" by source would be a LOT better. And there could still be short lists under other things as well.
You could have 20 or so for each power source, 5 or 6 for each role, and each class gets it's couple of feature powers.
Of course maybe those numbers ar low some like arcane, divine, and psionic would take more. There were hundreds of spells in previous editions. But if we count these "powers" only as the actually "attack" kinds of stuff I think 50 would be the max needed for any one source.
And since roles are not going to be explicit any more those probably would end up as choices under class.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

You know what I think is cool? The concept of AEDU applied to magical items. I would endorse that model going forward.

Also, monsters in 4e are outstanding- I would just like to see more narrative explanation of powers
Agree with you both.   And yes I totally agree with the magic item idea.   AEDU is great for magic items.
I didn't worship AEDU system or whatever mechanic like a sacred cow.

If they can make a new mechanic that better than AEDU then it's fine,
as long as the new mechanic give non-spell caster class an equal option to spell caster class.

But for now, the more I know about D&DN , the more it's less appeal to me.

It's bring back everything I hate about D&D.
Roll stat, vacian spell, non-caster class has option WITH penalty (basicly it's just a modifier basic attack),
heal bot role, spell-casters and their other side-kick game etc etc.

And it's look like the only 4e feature they're ever consider to bring back is Essential feature
that most 4e players hate.
And I see none of 1st and 2nd edition feature neither.

"D&DN is every editions game." is more like "D&DN is every edition game except 1st,2nd and 4th"
I didn't worship AEDU system or whatever mechanic like a sacred cow.

If they can make a new mechanic that better than AEDU then it's fine,
as long as the new mechanic give non-spell caster class an equal option to spell caster class.

But for now, the more I know about D&DN , the more it's less appeal to me.

It's bring back everything I hate about D&D.
Roll stat, vacian spell, non-caster class has option WITH penalty (basicly it's just a modifier basic attack),
heal bot role, spell-casters and their other side-kick game etc etc.

And it's look like the only 4e feature they're ever consider to bring back is Essential feature
that most 4e players hate.
And I see none of 1st and 2nd edition feature neither.

"D&DN is every editions game." is more like "D&DN is every edition game except 1st,2nd and 4th"



It's not that bad.  Parts of all the editions will get some representation.  If 4e was truly perfect for you then I'd stick with that game.  I think 1e/2e is getting some definite love with 5e and I'm happy about that.  I consider my own interests as lying between 1e and 3e with a smattering of 4e.  :-).

DDN should be able to evolve mechanical power without relying on an artificial meta game construct to do so.

All mechanics are meta...  every single one.

DING!

+2

The only thing 4e did was admit it.  (and then balance it).

It's not so much AEDU that people have an issue with.  Since it basic already exsisted in all edtions (well encounters may not have).

People have an issue with 4e's presentation.  (and that all classes got the same structure.. but that was fixed after PHB3).

*well... some complaining that wizards, or other classes not being gods...

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I think the loss of the hard magic (as expressed on the thread of that name) was a loss to the game.  Of course, I don't want vast imbalances in fun between the classes.  I recognize that many people really didn't enjoy the previous editions because of the imbalance they saw in those editions.   I'm not sure how to solve this problem.  I don't want martial equivalents to hard magic in most instances.  I'd be for some believable martial effects of course but not everything.

I agree that for a lot of us any common mechanic would be undesirable for D&D.  I think classes should operate differently.   But that doesn't mean a lot of classes couldn't benefit from AEDU style options.   Also magic items working that way would be good as I mentioned above.  Some classes having AE while others have D is also an option.  Others will have the full range of AEDU.

The key to me is not having classes so isolated.  Let there be plenty of crossover.



 
AEDU

A-at will. You'd probably find more earlier players don't mind this concept but its delivery. When one reads the concept of their character (the Player's perspective) they see the 2 at will choices being pretty much the only choices other than a basic attack....but why do basic when you can do more? I'm not saying the game mechanics only allows this....and it could very well promote other types of activities, but to the common player they have 2 choices with at will do either A or B

Now in the earlier editions the fighter could do neither of those....but had a whole backup of potential weapon prof's and NW prof's to bolster his action. The fighter could use tumbling and his normal attack to come up with a trick (or we could just say "at will type effect") but the range of that was left to his imagination....very open ended simply in the layout of how it was represented. Now every trick he attempted to use had a chance of failure (a failed tumbling check) so there was a sense of risk with much of everything you did, the more fantastic....the more the risk, but with a chance of gain in turning the tides of battle.
[I'm not arguing which is better....I'm am trying to explain to Emerikol how the game delivered its concepts onto players of earlier editions].


E-encounter. Encounter powers weren't so much an issue except that some players questioned their execution. "Come and get it" If you were flying 10' off the ground and flew over a group and executed the power.....how did they get sucked up into the air....you get an attack on each hovering guy, then they fall on their own accord so you get another attack for them retreating from your square then they fall prone upon hitting the ground for even more damage. Obviously i explained something that doesn't make a great deal of sense in the mind's eye but what was an ingenuitive player to do when he had an idea where the power didn't explain itself fully? Moreover....what was the force that actually dragged them to the fighter? If that was some sort of taunt (which still should include some sort of saving throw) how was he able to taunt 3 black puddings....did the fighter "quiver the right way"? (the DM shouldn't have to justify or micro manage abilities cause then every campaign starts looking weird and you have to learn the power anew with how each group portrays them.....if the system was really that good then it wouldn't need this.) Thats just one power our group pondered and simply accepted it and laughed and tossed it off as a carnival trick. Let me be the first to say....i don't like the idea of the fighter not having options...they very well should ...but within reason to what makes sense (remember the 1e-2e focus, don't include PlayerOption's books in this category...they are their own beast). Specialization should grant an extra 1w damage and double spec should let the fighter choose to increase +1 to hit & +1 damage OR maybe grant a parry (opposed roll), OR maybe increase 1w or grant faster initiative with that weapon OR etc... If you want them to have somesaults, stuns, barrel rolls, flips, prone fighting, water fighting, hit-move-hit-move(based on event) then have those powers but at least they make sense....even boulder charge made sense ....so in closing on this issue many of the abilities did make sense......others jeporadized the mind's eye with nonsensical effects that either need to be explained further or simply omitted.

[I want to add at this time that although the game is fanstasy based .....TSR (Tactical Studies Research) did try to bring realism to the game based on real world concepts or the mythology therein] So when we start to throw simple physics out the window....its fine if we can explain it away with "well its magic" but the martial characters do become nonsensical to a degree and rather unappealing (from the 1e-2e perspective). I think some explain this as "high fantasy" but thats not what D&D was (they may have created campaigns/worlds around that concept and it could even be portrayed that way by the DM and still remain as an intact game experience), thats the reason for "speed factor, weapon size, space required to weild weapon-which i still use, weight of gear etc." the game is riddled with stuff you can utilize to give the players a better sense of "realness" (i enjoy that a dagger or fist is faster to weild than a two-handed giant axe). Much of that became dropped by the wayside in favor of flash...looks with less depth. They may have been presented someplace in 4e but it wasn't the standard or even listed as mainstream. in 4e it could easily be avoided and the game still played the same way.


Now further along those lines:
D-daily. When the fighter is capable of pulling off 3 dailies....he should be able to pull off 3 of his choice, not....each of the 3 he chose. He should be able to choose a standard amount as per leveling (as 4e has it) maybe spend a feat/weapon proficiency and grab another "choice" and pick any among his 4 choices ...but gets 3 shots per day if you go the "aedu" route. But this stuff needs to be explained in sensical terms, thats what the 1e players enjoy, a sense of realness (i speak generically here). All his dailies should show a 3 stage progression that upgrades as he levels (i loath tiers but if that what needs to be done then so be it, i'd rather see it upgrade 8 levels beyond the level you attained it at to represent your character working with that effect) and also a 3 stage augmentation that if the fighter chooses ...he can spend (special daily weapon slots, he gets as many as he has dailies+1 or some such) to augment his daily choices with some added effect or he can use those to buy more daily choices. Not only does this allow customization...but customization within customization. That increases depth of powers rather than breadth of letting them choose between 400 powers but if 2 fighters choose boulder charge...they are essentially the same. Whereas cutomization lets one augment his own boulder charge if he chooses that daily....maybe with 1 extra movement....or 1 creature in the path (player's choice) gets stuck for 2w extra dice......or one is his focus for that charge and has an increased crit chance....etc or if someplace along that charge if he scores a natural 20 then it recharges once only, as a usable daily power for that given day.


U-utility. These should just be demoted to non-weapon or supportive weapon slot expenditures. If you want a daily-type charge effect....throw it in the dailies. I see the utilities as augmentations or bonus features but one could easily spend a weapon proficiency slot and call it that and leave it more open ended.


AEDU for magic gear has its place......but limiting the characters in the game from using magic gear because of level or uses per day, does create a sense of balance, but also genericises expectations. (we called the 3e "eyes of the eagle.....eyes of the seagul" b/c they gave +5 spot not "you can see up to 2 miles away". The first item was not game breaking (2 mile vision)....while the second simply made it a number to be stacked up with upteen thousands of satckable numbers and didn't have the feel of a special piece of gear.


I divert slightly but: 
In closing, the earlier players enjoy the idea that a major creature in a module vastly outweighed the modules' intended level range (there wasn't always one, but sometimes there was), it left the wonderment of each corner turned to not have an anticipated expectation of "level rated challenges". Some were simply beyond the characters and you had to leave that well enough alone, or the players could essentially "risk". This also goes for rolling your character stats, and that you need to roll a to hit with some spells and proficiencies were rolled for anything extreme (in most cases). The risk. Drawback, of course.....a group could have a series of bad rolls and inevitably spell doom for the party, but its that sense that doom could actually be present at each moment that gave the rush.

I hope this doesn't get the bad flack i think it might but i'm trying to give a good portrayal from the vantage point of a 1e-2e gamer that still plays 1e-2e (and we still only have 1 wizard in most groups...mostly fighters and sometimes up to 3 clerics). Maybe we played 4e wrong or the DMs i charactered under didn't have a full proper take on the game....but for what we did do, we did laugh, we did enjoy, we were entertained. We never felt really challenged (it was difficult to die, and with the arsonal of gear and powers it was hard not to win....easily), we felt some of the powers were a bit wonky, the spell casters were incompetent (not the player)...or perhaps maybe impotent, the rooms felt too contrived with the layout of monsters (they all seemed to be perfectly spaced apart), minions were simply a false sense of bravado when you rolled them down......too much flash without depth. Magic items weren't working properly (and everybody got the ones they wanted all the time), the economics were silly 1/5 resale.

All in all the risk didn't seem as present, but the levels came fast and rewards came faster, it felt like less of a personal achievement. I know i veered on the OP, sorry, i am always passionate about this game and support it always in the sense that it does bring enjoyment to a group of friends over at my house every week we play.....even after 25 years. I apologize early if i have offended others just as passionate about the game, i am just trying to answer the OP.           
Taunting a black pudding is house ruling the fluff to work when the shared frame of reference amongst the players knows that it is ludicrous. But hey, mechanics trump narrative!
Taunting a black pudding is house ruling the fluff to work when the shared frame of reference amongst the players knows that it is ludicrous. But hey, mechanics trump narrative!

Then they should of added...

"black pudding can't be taunted, or knocked prone". 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Some players just don't want to find out that the Great and Powerful Oz is that little man behind the curtain.

As for black puddings, it's not that mechanics trump narrative, it's that mechanics CHANGE narrative. If you are giving a pudding the prone condition you aren't doing it the same way you would a treant or a dragon or an elf. The results are the same, mechanically, but the narrative is different.
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
Rule everything then need for DM!
Problems with the execution of AEDU as a system:
1. Only system used for all classes.  This makes all the classes function the same to me, worse so, it made all monsters function the same, as well.
2. Generally strict adherence to a particular formula of powers (every class picked the exact same type of ability at each level).
3. No shared lists of powers, for much of what you've said.  Also, this made it frustratingly time consuming to build new classes for the game.

Problems with the execution of At-Will powers:
1. They feel too cinematic, like the characters are using martial arts moves rather than fighting (Fire Crane Strike! Hyaa!).  Fine for some settings, not for most.
2. The feel limiting for non-Caster classes.  Why can't any Ranger attempt to shoot two arrows in an attack action, why only the ones that take the Twin Strike power?  I'm an advocate for non-Caster classes that never have to choose "powers," instead choosing what kind of functions they specialize in.  A non-Caster class can attempt to do anything non-magical, modifiers applicable.
3. For Caster classes, it makes magic "always on."  I like when the Cleric/Wizard/etc can't use magic anymore because of poor planning, a disregard for appropriate rationing, or from a particularly long day.  Magic should be a wisely spent resource, not screeching missiles everywhere.

Problems with the execution of Encounter powers:
1. Gamist.  It's hard to express more of a dislike for Encounter powers than what I have.  They don't fit in Martial classes or Caster classes as they are implemented, which is, as "moves" (see martial arts moves, above).  I could understand Encounter powers that represent a character exerting themself that they then can't attempt again until they've rested.  But they shouldn't be their own Lightning Dragon Punch moves, rather they should improve something that the character can already do; they should be providing bonuses, rather than being attacks.  A short duration Barbarian Rage is something I could see as an encounter power.  "I swing my sword really hard, and I can only swing my sword that hard in this particular method," is just something that breaks immersion, and is done so in a very uncreative way, to me.

Problems with the execution of Daily powers:
1. I don't like them in non-Caster classes.  I never have.  They feel like spells.
2. Again, I don't like the non-shared list approach for Caster classes, there should be cross-polinization of magic.

Those are my issues with AEDU as implemented.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
Yes first turn kill, eloquent as always
Problems with the execution of AEDU as a system:
2. The feel limiting for non-Caster classes.  Why can't any Ranger attempt to shoot two arrows in an attack action, why only the ones that take the Twin Strike power?  I'm an advocate for non-Caster classes that never have to choose "powers," instead choosing what kind of functions they specialize in.  A non-Caster class can attempt to do anything non-magical, modifiers applicable.
3. For Caster classes, it makes magic "always on."  I like when the Cleric/Wizard/etc can't use magic anymore because of poor planning, a disregard for appropriate rationing, or from a particularly long day.  Magic should be a wisely spent resource, not screeching missiles everywhere.

Those are my issues with AEDU as implemented.



Good as gold!
Some players just don't want to find out that the Great and Powerful Oz is that little man behind the curtain.

As for black puddings, it's not that mechanics trump narrative, it's that mechanics CHANGE narrative. If you are giving a pudding the prone condition you aren't doing it the same way you would a treant or a dragon or an elf. The results are the same, mechanically, but the narrative is different.



I understand that part surely, as most of my gaming is spent DMing. Narrative adjustments on the fly is part and parcel to 1e-2e gaming styles. The problem lies with trying to push the narrative to fit the power rather than just saying, that doesn't work because the anatomy of amorphoids doesn't allow for "proneness" heheh....if thats even a word. I think maybe the classifications of some monsters should have in their description (this is immune to crits except from "divine attacks", this creature is immune to prone effects, this creature is immune to sleep etc.) When the narrative is forced every time to accomodate the mechanics it can prove to be too much of a stretch for the "mind's eye" where it slips into "too far a stretch".
Taunting a black pudding is house ruling the fluff to work when the shared frame of reference amongst the players knows that it is ludicrous. But hey, mechanics trump narrative!

Then they should of added...

"black pudding can't be taunted, or knocked prone". 



That would be most helpful. ;)
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Taunting a black pudding is house ruling the fluff to work when the shared frame of reference amongst the players knows that it is ludicrous. But hey, mechanics trump narrative!

Then they should of added...

"black pudding can't be taunted, or knocked prone". 



That would be most helpful. ;)


I will acknowledge that narratively puddings and oozes could be immune to being knocked "prone". They don't have feet and legs so they can't be knocked off of them.

However mechanically there is no reason for it. Looking at the text of prone:
1. You grant combat advantage to melee attacks. That simply means you give a little advantage to whoever is next to you.
2. You can't move from your space. Although teleport, crawl, pull, push and slide still work. Do puddings and oozes actually do anything OTHER than crawl?
3. +2 to AC against ranged attacks from non adjacent enemies. Is an AC bonus a huge nararative thing?
4. You're lying on the ground. Where are the puddings and oozes in your games?
5. -2 penalty to attacks. Another non narrative mechanical effect.
6. You can voluntarily do it as a minor action. Choice.

I don't see from these things what the big narrative issue is.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Taunting a black pudding is house ruling the fluff to work when the shared frame of reference amongst the players knows that it is ludicrous. But hey, mechanics trump narrative!

Then they should of added...

"black pudding can't be taunted, or knocked prone". 



That would be most helpful. ;)


I will acknowledge that narratively puddings and oozes could be immune to being knocked "prone". They don't have feet and legs so they can't be knocked off of them.

However mechanically there is no reason for it. Looking at the text of prone:
1. You grant combat advantage to melee attacks. That simply means you give a little advantage to whoever is next to you.
2. You can't move from your space. Although teleport, crawl, pull, push and slide still work. Do puddings and oozes actually do anything OTHER than crawl?
3. +2 to AC against ranged attacks from non adjacent enemies. Is an AC bonus a huge nararative thing?
4. You're lying on the ground. Where are the puddings and oozes in your games?
5. -2 penalty to attacks. Another non narrative mechanical effect.
6. You can voluntarily do it as a minor action. Choice.

I don't see from these things what the big narrative issue is.



I think that really, it's that people get hung up on the word for the condition instead of the effects.  Since the word is considered to be the narrative, they can't or won't stepp past the word, look at the mechanics and see that the effects could indeed apply to any monster, since all the monsters are are a bundle of mechanics in a story wrapper.  I think it bothers pure narrative people on the basis that for DMs of 4th ed the math is transparent to the point of possibly effecting their ability to tell a narrative, and that from a simulatory experience, one must be able to be knocked over to become prone.  Both take the word at it's real life instead of game definition, leaving the more mechancially minded players and DMs to be able to look beyond the term and reskin the effects of mechanics to suit them.

Basically, the ability to reskin and or bend and apply narrative definitions seems to be infringed upon for narrative and simulatory gamers based on terms instead of mechanics and logic.

I could of course be wrong, but that does seem to be what it boils down to.

I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals. ;)
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Nah, pretty much it makes all classes too mechanical. I wouldn't play DDN if they kept AEDU as part of core. Almost 4 years of playing with it was long enough IMO. DDN should be able to evolve mechanical power without relying on an artificial meta game construct to do so.



Then why did you play 3.5?

At-will powers existed in the form of 'At-will' abilities. Notably, Spell-like Abilities, Extraordinary abilities and Supernatural abilities. These often came attached with a fun little bracket that read something like this: (3/day), or (at-will). This also made them daily powers. Vancian was also daily powers. There were indeed feats that while you had Spell Type X prepped, you gained a scaling at-will spell of the same type. A sonic spell gave you a short range sonic at-will that dealt xd4, where x is equal to the spell level of the spell prepped. You could continue to use this at-will spell until you expended the spell slot that contained the spell, at which point you'd check your list for another sonic spell of a lower level and determine if you lost that at-will or not. It a bit of a book-keeping mess, but what about a Wizard wasn't in 3.5?

As for Encounter powers... well, the Tome of Battle took care of that. Maneuvers were the quintessential Encounter power, designed to test the waters for 4e. Some people felt it was broken; mostly due to being unable to read. Ruby Knight Vindicator was often leveled at as 'broken' due to it's ability to generate extra swift actions for turning attempts... once a turn. Which was the important distinction people oft ignored. The fact is, the Warblade and Crusader alone brought the martial archetype to 'parity', and by 'parity', I mean, caster's still outclassed them, but at least they were much closer. The Swordsage fixed the monk, and had the 'truest' form of the encounter power, as Swordsage Recovery was basically impossible to utilitize, and thus, they could only recover powers after an encounter.

Utility always existed. Trapfinding is a Utility. Fast Movement is a Utility. Basically every non-shape Invocation for the Warlock/Dragonfire Adept is an at-will utility. Some of them were passive, some of them were active. They were all still utilities.

4e just presented it in a way that people didn't like. That's all.
I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals. ;)

Exactly. 

Though we might run into some problems explaining how you "taunt" a mindless giant dessert with an appetite for adventurers...

Test your PC builds' combat prowess and pit them against other builds at the Core Coliseum - the online D&D arena.
I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals. ;)

Exactly. 

Though we might run into some problems explaining how you "taunt" a mindless giant dessert with an appetite for adventurers...


Ugh, don't even get me started on the "challenge effects everything" mechanic and marks "overwriting" marks.  Extreme gamism.

But this is about AEDU, so I'll refrain from taking that any further in here.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals. ;)

Exactly. 

Though we might run into some problems explaining how you "taunt" a mindless giant dessert with an appetite for adventurers...


Ugh, don't even get me started on the "challenge effects everything" mechanic and marks "overwriting" marks.  Extreme gamism.

But this is about AEDU, so I'll refrain from taking that any further in here.



Can't let that one go without: is it possible to make a game system that is fair, simple and balanced without being gamist?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
It's not that bad.  Parts of all the editions will get some representation....

They (the Wizards marketing folks & D&D Next Web Crew) haven't given us any concrete information. They continue to promise everything to everyone but haven't locked anything down. So far there has been little or no representation from any edition other than generic iconic ideas. Some of the stuff they previewed already is continuing to be questioned even by the Web Crew in the polls. Either they do know what they are going to do and this polling thing is a farce or they don't know and nothing is true represented yet.
Can't let that one go without: is it possible to make a game system that is fair, simple and balanced without being gamist?


Is it possible to make life fair, simple, and balanced without being gamist?

Tabletop RPGs have the ability to tell life-like stories that other games cannot due primarily to technological limitations.  I don't care much for spending time worrying about balance and fairness when there are other mediums through which a game can be played that can be built to ensure those qualities.  But I do care for immersion, internal consistency, and (dare I say it on this forum?) realism in paper-and-pencil games.

You know I'm a simulationist, Kalnuar; did you need to ask that question to know my answer?  ;)

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM

So I've been trying to zero in on the real problem people have with AEDU.  Now I can't speak for everyone but I'm starting to think that it is not AEDU at all.  It is the way AEDU is used in 4e that is throwing a lot of people from earlier editions.


In 4e, each classes powers were strictly that classes powers.   In some ways this made life simple since you only had to look at what your class could do.  On the other hand, it also reduced the overall choices and choices are fun.   Now I will agree that mathematically, many of the powers were very similar but flavor wise I feel there was still a disconnect.


...


I am hoping in 5e that the number of class specific powers is greatly reduced.  Maybe not to zero as a few powers per class can add distinctiveness.  (e.g. laying on of hands for Paladins).   Instead I'd rather the powers be grouped by power source (yea I hate that martial is a "power" source but I don't have a better name for the whole group that includes martial).    Then let the classes focus to differing degrees on the power sources.


...


Anyway, I see the lack of crossover as one of the things about AEDU that people dislike.  Does anyone else feel this way?



Well, this is an interesting subject. One that's conflicting even among the 4E crowd exclusively.

Let me start by saying I agree with you. "Different powers for different people" was not even a half-decent manner to contrast classes.

But that's only part of the problem. The other part was the designers' initial assumption that gaining AEDU powers was an interesting enough replacement to gaining new class features on level-up on it's own merits; it wasn't. I'm sure the not totally backwards or needlessly constrained essentials classes and themes were patched in the Edition for this reason. Your mileage may vary whether this was all too little too late.

Can't let that one go without: is it possible to make a game system that is fair, simple and balanced without being gamist?


Is it possible to make life fair, simple, and balanced without being gamist?

Tabletop RPGs have the ability to tell life-like stories that other games cannot due primarily to technological limitations.  I don't care much for spending time worrying about balance and fairness when there are other mediums through which a game can be played that can be built to ensure those qualities.  But I do care for immersion, internal consistency, and (dare I say it on this forum?) realism in paper-and-pencil games.

You know I'm a simulationist, Kalnuar; did you need to ask that question to know my answer?  ;)



Sort of, yeah.  I don't look for nor want life in my games.  I forget that other people do, since it is so anathema to my own wants, and the wants of other gamers I generally am around.

That said, the ability to do things in D&D is a primary reason I enjoy it.  My example is that it allows me to climb, a rather simple thing, whereas in Oblivion I can get to carrying 1000+ pounds of gear, but can't climb a cliff face.  I like some simulated reality, in other words.  But for me, a game is a game first, a story second, and reality last. ;)



I do wonder if any game system can provide all three in just the right amounts, or if it can instead simply give them all to a greater or lesser extent and then get player and DM to insert them.

As for different powers for different classes, and gaining powers on level-up.  All that's cool, but I would have liked other minor bumps to race and class features at pretty much every level.  Then again, I like to see what new shiney I get at each level, and the more the better.  Again, probably gamist, but I play games because of what they are. ;)
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals. ;)

Exactly. 

Though we might run into some problems explaining how you "taunt" a mindless giant dessert with an appetite for adventurers...




While i understand the idea of just making it work by explaining it via story....it just makes reality simply bend to anything to fit the power. But is that what we want....evrything so simplified that everything can then be knocked prone? Do we say that the word prone is simply a genericized word representing a "state" of being? What else are we allowed to genericize simply to make it fit? This becomes a translation nightmare for a DM (not l=to mention leading to rules lawyering/mongering), who is a literalist versus a realist vs a mechnically-inclined DM. The problem is not that we have different DMs who would need to intepret things differently......the problem is that we all need to be speaking the same language or else the words can be shaped/bent to fit any meaning we want them to.  So once the meaning is established and defined concretely.....you are not to allow any variance or else every variance is allowed (then nobody is justified that theirs is the true concept) and the game loses integrity in the process. If the powers are to work properly, then there must be entries on the monsters to manage what they're immune to and also examples of what cannot be affected with a certain power. Examples are great as this clarifies intent of meaning (Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine was reknown for this clarification process).
I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals. ;)

Exactly. 

Though we might run into some problems explaining how you "taunt" a mindless giant dessert with an appetite for adventurers...




While i understand the idea of just making it work by explaining it via story....it just makes reality simply bend to anything to fit the power. But is that what we want....evrything so simplified that everything can then be knocked prone? Do we say that the word prone is simply a genericized word representing a "state" of being? What else are we allowed to genericize simply to make it fit? This becomes a translation nightmare for a DM (not l=to mention leading to rules lawyering/mongering), who is a literalist versus a realist vs a mechnically-inclined DM. The problem is not that we have different DMs who would need to intepret things differently......the problem is that we all need to be speaking the same language or else the words can be shaped/bent to fit any meaning we want them to.  So once the meaning is established and defined concretely.....you are not to allow any variance or else every variance is allowed (then nobody is justified that theirs is the true concept) and the game loses integrity in the process. If the powers are to work properly, then there must be entries on the monsters to manage what they're immune to and also examples of what cannot be affected with a certain power. Examples are great as this clarifies intent of meaning (Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine was reknown for this clarification process).



My understanding is that Prone is being used as the in-game term for a collection of effects.  In and of itself, the word Prone being used for this collection of effects is because those effects most easily represented by the word "prone".  When that word doesn't make sense to be used to define those effects, the word should be ignored, but the effects stay.  After all, the Prone word, or word for any condition is simply a shorthand within the game for a specific set of effects.  If the word doesn't fit for all circumstances, it can be ignored for the sake of the mechanical implementation.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]


My understanding is that Prone is being used as the in-game term for a collection of effects.  In and of itself, the word Prone being used for this collection of effects is because those effects most easily represented by the word "prone".  When that word doesn't make sense to be used to define those effects, the word should be ignored, but the effects stay.  After all, the Prone word, or word for any condition is simply a shorthand within the game for a specific set of effects.  If the word doesn't fit for all circumstances, it can be ignored for the sake of the mechanical implementation.



Bingo!
My understanding is that Prone is being used as the in-game term for a collection of effects.  In and of itself, the word Prone being used for this collection of effects is because those effects most easily represented by the word "prone".  When that word doesn't make sense to be used to define those effects, the word should be ignored, but the effects stay.  After all, the Prone word, or word for any condition is simply a shorthand within the game for a specific set of effects.  If the word doesn't fit for all circumstances, it can be ignored for the sake of the mechanical implementation.


And see, for me, the collection of effects is determined only after deciding on using the word "prone."  As in, if someone is in a prone position, what effects should apply?  A simulation can only be so detailed, and the "prone" effects get applied to things that are in a position similar enough to the prone position that it doesn't break verisimilitude.  When the word doesn't make sense to use to define those effects, that collection of effects is ignored.  The effects are a description of the word, rather than the word being a title for the effects.

I do wonder if any game system can provide all three in just the right amounts, or if it can instead simply give them all to a greater or lesser extent and then get player and DM to insert them.


It needs to provide all three, but it needs to ensure that it doesn't "feel" like it's mandating a particular one.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals. ;)

Exactly. 

Though we might run into some problems explaining how you "taunt" a mindless giant dessert with an appetite for adventurers...




While i understand the idea of just making it work by explaining it via story....it just makes reality simply bend to anything to fit the power. But is that what we want....evrything so simplified that everything can then be knocked prone? Do we say that the word prone is simply a genericized word representing a "state" of being? What else are we allowed to genericize simply to make it fit? This becomes a translation nightmare for a DM (not l=to mention leading to rules lawyering/mongering), who is a literalist versus a realist vs a mechnically-inclined DM. The problem is not that we have different DMs who would need to intepret things differently......the problem is that we all need to be speaking the same language or else the words can be shaped/bent to fit any meaning we want them to.  So once the meaning is established and defined concretely.....you are not to allow any variance or else every variance is allowed (then nobody is justified that theirs is the true concept) and the game loses integrity in the process. If the powers are to work properly, then there must be entries on the monsters to manage what they're immune to and also examples of what cannot be affected with a certain power. Examples are great as this clarifies intent of meaning (Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine was reknown for this clarification process).

Well, this was sort of my point. In 4e, the idea is that the mechanics are always the same - prone is a game term with exact mechanics that resemble the real consequences of a proned creature (provided said creature is usually upright) - regardless of the narrative. In the narrative, if a power prones an orc, it might unsettle a black pudding. The mechanics themselves are the language, so to speak: in 4e, the game term prone doesn't necessarily mean prone in the narrative, it just means the same package of mechanics is applied to the prone orc as well as to the unsettled pudding in the narrative. This only becomes gamey if the players/DM view it as such (or somehow lack the small amount of imagination required to make the narrative believeable). I think this strict separation of the narrative, in-game, definition and the mechanical definition is one of the greatest strengths of 4e, allowing the players/DMs to pick and choose their mechanics to suit the narrative, without having to disrupt neither "gamability" (balance, complexity etc) or verisimilitude.

The problem, IMO, is that if you apply a very strict adherence to the flavor, the narrative and the mechanics can become too separated, thus disrupting the narrative itself. It could become "narratively challenging" when a verbally talented fighter uses his taunt power/ability/trick on said black pudding - just how can the verbal taunt mechanics affect a pudding, a "thing" which can barely be called alive? Unless the fighter has some very intimate knowledge of pudding behavior, some people would say it won't work because it'll disrupt either A) the PC concept of a verbally talented fighter or B) the pudding concept of a giant mindless ameoba-ish creature. In other words, the problem lies primarily in how flexible you view the flavor and narrative to be, not in the mechanics themselves. And this is a problem every edition of DnD has (and arguably every RPG with a rules system ever created).

Anyhow, these cases are extremely rare IMO (and I wouldn't have any problems narrating "the taunting of the pudding" in 4e).

And this is rather OT, sorry.

Test your PC builds' combat prowess and pit them against other builds at the Core Coliseum - the online D&D arena.
And see, for me, the collection of effects is determined only after deciding on using the word "prone."  As in, if someone is in a prone position, what effects should apply?  A simulation can only be so detailed, and the "prone" effects get applied to things that are in a position similar enough to the prone position that it doesn't break verisimilitude.  When the word doesn't make sense to use to define those effects, that collection of effects is ignored.  The effects are a description of the word, rather than the word being a title for the effects.

So you would prefer specific mechanics for every possible condition applicable to a very wide variety of situations and creatures instead? Even if the "unsettled" condition (only applicable to blobs such as oozes and puddings) would contain nearly the exact same mechanics and numerical values as the "prone" condition (only applicable to "pronable" creatures)?

To me, this would be a giant waste of rule book space, not to mention a major break from DnD tradition.

Test your PC builds' combat prowess and pit them against other builds at the Core Coliseum - the online D&D arena.