Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:45PM, Maxperson wrote:

None of that means didly.  The dragon doesn't actually bite the fighter when he takes his damage from the "bite."  It's a near miss.

Wait, you mean a Hit (in game terms) doesn't mean that he was physically hit?

Egads!  That's almost exactly like a Push (in game terms) not meaning that something is physically pushed!

I'm aware of that, but there aren't any ways for a fighter to force a dragon to move that don't involve physically pushing the dragon, either.  A fighter could make a dragon rear its head, lift a claw or move its tail, but it is just too big for him to make it move if it doesn't want to move.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:53PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Okay, here is where the disconnect is. By making Wizards unbound by the same rules Fighters are bound by, even by a little bit, you're making a concious choice to make Wizards better than Fighters.

The word is different.  Not better.  It makes wizards different from fighters.  Fighters will still get the same amount of powers.  Fighter powers will be comparable in power level.  They just won't break physics.  And really, I'm talking about martial powers more than fighters specifically.  Fighters have just become the poster child for some reason.

My point is, by allowing the Wizard to do everything, and the Fighter not to, you are making the Wizard the better choice, and making him less playable because they get to do less.

I'm really not sure where you are getting "wizards can do everything" from what I've been saying.  I've been saying MAGIC can do anything, not wizards or any other individual class.  Wizards and fighgters should do different things, but comparable in power level.  Power level does not mean identical status effects, so a fighter need not be able to push ginormous things like dragons in order to be comparable in power to a wizard.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:55PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Also, you can totally force a Dragon back by bopping him in the nose with your shield. That crap would get annoying.

No.  That would only cause the dragon to raise its head above the fighter's reach.  That's it.  That's all that can be FORCED.  Now, the dragon could choose on it's own to move away from the fighter, but that's the DM's call, not something the fighter forced.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:32PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:45PM, Maxperson wrote:

None of that means didly.  The dragon doesn't actually bite the fighter when he takes his damage from the "bite."  It's a near miss.

Wait, you mean a Hit (in game terms) doesn't mean that he was physically hit?

Egads!  That's almost exactly like a Push (in game terms) not meaning that something is physically pushed!

I'm aware of that, but there aren't any ways for a fighter to force a dragon to move that don't involve physically pushing the dragon, either.  A fighter could make a dragon rear its head, lift a claw or move its tail, but it is just too big for him to make it move if it doesn't want to move.

"I strike the dragon right between the eyes with my hammer; it shakes it's head and stumbles backward, dazed after such a mighty hit."

Which would be a power that had a push 1 and dazed until end of next turn effect on a hit.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:13PM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

If it is one power you object to then isn't that really trivial? You're not objecting to one power, you're basically objecting to fighters have ANY magic powers at all,

Corrected for accuracy.

So, make me a list of these supposed powers which break the laws of physics completely! I already made a list of all the level 29 capstone daily fighter powers, the strongest powers in the game for that class, and not ONE of them at least IMHO more than barely dents the laws of physics. I just DO NOT SEE THESE POWERS Max. I'll go further and say I don't think they exist in the game. If they do, show them to us. You've named exactly one power, ever, that you don't like, and even that one USUALLY doesn't break anything that I would judge to be the laws of physics at all.

Every power that will push a dragon.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:40PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:32PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:45PM, Maxperson wrote:

None of that means didly.  The dragon doesn't actually bite the fighter when he takes his damage from the "bite."  It's a near miss.

Wait, you mean a Hit (in game terms) doesn't mean that he was physically hit?

Egads!  That's almost exactly like a Push (in game terms) not meaning that something is physically pushed!

I'm aware of that, but there aren't any ways for a fighter to force a dragon to move that don't involve physically pushing the dragon, either.  A fighter could make a dragon rear its head, lift a claw or move its tail, but it is just too big for him to make it move if it doesn't want to move.

"I strike the dragon right between the eyes with my hammer; it shakes it's head and stumbles backward, dazed after such a mighty hit."

Which would be a power that had a push 1 and dazed until end of next turn effect on a hit.

It also wouldn't work on an ancient dragon.  If you don't strike with enough force to impart momentum to the dragon, it won't stumble anywhere.  All it will do in that circumstance is shake it's head.  I don't have in issue with a martial power dazing a dragon.  It's that they can't impart momentum to a creature of that size.  Even a strike to the knee won't do much other than maybe make it fall.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:32PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:45PM, Maxperson wrote:

None of that means didly.  The dragon doesn't actually bite the fighter when he takes his damage from the "bite."  It's a near miss.

Wait, you mean a Hit (in game terms) doesn't mean that he was physically hit?

Egads!  That's almost exactly like a Push (in game terms) not meaning that something is physically pushed!

I'm aware of that, but there aren't any ways for a fighter to force a dragon to move that don't involve physically pushing the dragon, either.  A fighter could make a dragon rear its head, lift a claw or move its tail, but it is just too big for him to make it move if it doesn't want to move.

there are plenty of examples, you just dont accept them.

Welp, there isn't any argument here, anymore. Max will continue to say 4e Fighters break physics, while completely accepting how 3.5 Fighters break physics. He'll content that "hitting" someone isn't always hitting someone, but "pushing" something is ALWAYS pushing something. He'll continue to have double standards for his favoured edition, and refuse to admit that while even having similar power levels, Fighters with less options (because Fighters with options break physics) are worse than Wizards with more options.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:46PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:40PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:32PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:45PM, Maxperson wrote:

None of that means didly.  The dragon doesn't actually bite the fighter when he takes his damage from the "bite."  It's a near miss.

Wait, you mean a Hit (in game terms) doesn't mean that he was physically hit?

Egads!  That's almost exactly like a Push (in game terms) not meaning that something is physically pushed!

I'm aware of that, but there aren't any ways for a fighter to force a dragon to move that don't involve physically pushing the dragon, either.  A fighter could make a dragon rear its head, lift a claw or move its tail, but it is just too big for him to make it move if it doesn't want to move.

"I strike the dragon right between the eyes with my hammer; it shakes it's head and stumbles backward, dazed after such a mighty hit."

Which would be a power that had a push 1 and dazed until end of next turn effect on a hit.

It also wouldn't work on an ancient dragon.  If you don't strike with enough force to impart momentum to the dragon, it won't stumble anywhere.  All it will do in that circumstance is shake it's head.  I don't have in issue with a martial power dazing a dragon.  It's that they can't impart momentum to a creature of that size.  Even a strike to the knee won't do much other than maybe make it fall.

this is the issue, you just cant accept any good examples.  

Not to mention that a fighter that is fighting a gargantuan dragon is most likely gonig to be a demi-god or a whole whost of awe inspiring heroes.

A level 1 fighter is unlikely to do anything to that aincent dragon but a level 30 demi god would. 

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:46PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:40PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:32PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:45PM, Maxperson wrote:

None of that means didly.  The dragon doesn't actually bite the fighter when he takes his damage from the "bite."  It's a near miss.

Wait, you mean a Hit (in game terms) doesn't mean that he was physically hit?

Egads!  That's almost exactly like a Push (in game terms) not meaning that something is physically pushed!

I'm aware of that, but there aren't any ways for a fighter to force a dragon to move that don't involve physically pushing the dragon, either.  A fighter could make a dragon rear its head, lift a claw or move its tail, but it is just too big for him to make it move if it doesn't want to move.

"I strike the dragon right between the eyes with my hammer; it shakes it's head and stumbles backward, dazed after such a mighty hit."

Which would be a power that had a push 1 and dazed until end of next turn effect on a hit.

It also wouldn't work on an ancient dragon.  If you don't strike with enough force to impart momentum to the dragon, it won't stumble anywhere.  All it will do in that circumstance is shake it's head.  I don't have in issue with a martial power dazing a dragon.  It's that they can't impart momentum to a creature of that size.  Even a strike to the knee won't do much other than maybe make it fall.

So your claim is that something that joggles the brain will only make the dragon shake it's head, that it would never stumble, unwillingly, because it had been struck with enough force to actually get through to making it take some serious brain damage?  Even if this is a character who is, by game stats, a demigod?  Because that's when players would be fighting ancient dragons. 

Also, what about a Martial attack that stunned and moved a dragon?  You have hit a dragon so hard that it is unable to act, and is more open to attack; would that amount of a hit still be unable to make a dragon stumble backwards, not from the inertia of the hit, but the effect the hit had (in this case, scrambling its brains)?

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation about mythical beings being moved by god anything.  It's all heroic fantasy fiction anyway.  Not sure what the block here is.

Also, did you just claim that a martial character couldn't knock a dragon prone?

I think you may have missed my previous post (because it was at the end of the last page... also, I think it may have been a response to you that was edited into an existing post).  But, anyways:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:32PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:45PM, Maxperson wrote:

None of that means didly.  The dragon doesn't actually bite the fighter when he takes his damage from the "bite."  It's a near miss.

Wait, you mean a Hit (in game terms) doesn't mean that he was physically hit?

Egads!  That's almost exactly like a Push (in game terms) not meaning that something is physically pushed!

I'm aware of that, but there aren't any ways for a fighter to force a dragon to move that don't involve physically pushing the dragon, either.  A fighter could make a dragon rear its head, lift a claw or move its tail, but it is just too big for him to make it move if it doesn't want to move.

You do realize that, at this point, the only reason that "you can't make it move if it doesn't want to" is... because you say so, right?  You dismiss any alternatives - are you the one and only, exclusive, master of how-dragons-work? 

"A dragon will never, ever, EVER in a million years (EVER!) take a step back from a Fighter."
"Why?  Bigger animals (and people) back away from smaller threats all the time - even things that aren't real threats.  So, why is that statement true?"
"Because Maxperson Says So."

At this point, if you take out the middle parts, your position boils down to:

"4e Fighters don't obey the laws of physics... because I say so."

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:48PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:32PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:45PM, Maxperson wrote:

None of that means didly.  The dragon doesn't actually bite the fighter when he takes his damage from the "bite."  It's a near miss.

Wait, you mean a Hit (in game terms) doesn't mean that he was physically hit?

Egads!  That's almost exactly like a Push (in game terms) not meaning that something is physically pushed!

I'm aware of that, but there aren't any ways for a fighter to force a dragon to move that don't involve physically pushing the dragon, either.  A fighter could make a dragon rear its head, lift a claw or move its tail, but it is just too big for him to make it move if it doesn't want to move.

there are plenty of examples, you just dont accept them.

I fully admit that I won't accept an example that relies on weak justifications.  I demand that things make sense in games that I play in or run. 

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:51PM, Herrozerro wrote:

this is the issue, you just cant accept any good examples.

I haven't seen a good example given.  

Not to mention that a fighter that is fighting a gargantuan dragon is most likely gonig to be a demi-god or a whole whost of awe inspiring heroes.

Then he'll have magic.  Demigods have magic.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 5:38PM, Maxperson wrote:

I fully admit that I won't accept an example that relies on weak justifications.  I demand that things make sense in games that I play in or run. 

One person's weak justification is awesomesause for another. 

Dec 10, 2011 -- 5:39PM, Maxperson wrote:

Then he'll have magic.  Demigods have magic.

Not nessessarly, just godlike strength.  doenst have to be "Magic".

Dec 10, 2011 -- 5:39PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:51PM, Herrozerro wrote:

this is the issue, you just cant accept any good examples.

I haven't seen a good example given.  

That's the useful part about closing your eyes.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:55PM, Kalnaur wrote:

So your claim is that something that joggles the brain will only make the dragon shake it's head, that it would never stumble, unwillingly, because it had been struck with enough force to actually get through to making it take some serious brain damage?  Even if this is a character who is, by game stats, a demigod?  Because that's when players would be fighting ancient dragons.

First, there isn't any brain damage involved or there would be some sort of permanent status effect other than dazed for a round

Second, the fighter would have no control over where the dragon went if it did stumble somehow, such as if it were in motion when it got hit.  Its motion would determine where it ended up, not the fighter.

Third, even a demigod fighter doesn't have the physical stats to impart motion on a non-moving ancient dragon.

Also, what about a Martial attack that stunned and moved a dragon?  You have hit a dragon so hard that it is unable to act, and is more open to attack; would that amount of a hit still be unable to make a dragon stumble backwards, not from the inertia of the hit, but the effect the hit had (in this case, scrambling its brains)?

If a dragon attempted to move while stunned, the martial attack user would have no control over which way it went.  I could see it not moving effectively if it tried to move while stunned, but the DM would be the one to decide where it ended up.  The thing is, it's up to the DM who is playing the dragon to decide if it would indeed try to move while it is stunned, not the martial attack user.  The martial attack user (or player) has no ability to decide the actions of the dragon.

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation about mythical beings being moved by god anything.  It's all heroic fantasy fiction anyway.  Not sure what the block here is.

It's just a difference of play style really.  I'm not into playing characters that work like Marvel Super Heroes.  When Thor tries to life a battleship, in the comics it works.  In reality, no matter how strong he is, he doesn't have the mass to life it.  He would only end up lifting himself off the ground. 

You are into playing that sort of D&D game, and that's fine.  It's just not my cup of tea

Also, did you just claim that a martial character couldn't knock a dragon prone?

Nope   I just said that hitting it in the leg really hard wouldn't be enough in and of itself to do it.  In battle, I could see a dragon putting weight on a leg and having that leg taken out from under it by an attack.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:46PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:40PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:32PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:45PM, Maxperson wrote:

None of that means didly.  The dragon doesn't actually bite the fighter when he takes his damage from the "bite."  It's a near miss.

Wait, you mean a Hit (in game terms) doesn't mean that he was physically hit?

Egads!  That's almost exactly like a Push (in game terms) not meaning that something is physically pushed!

I'm aware of that, but there aren't any ways for a fighter to force a dragon to move that don't involve physically pushing the dragon, either.  A fighter could make a dragon rear its head, lift a claw or move its tail, but it is just too big for him to make it move if it doesn't want to move.

"I strike the dragon right between the eyes with my hammer; it shakes it's head and stumbles backward, dazed after such a mighty hit."

Which would be a power that had a push 1 and dazed until end of next turn effect on a hit.

It also wouldn't work on an ancient dragon.  If you don't strike with enough force to impart momentum to the dragon, it won't stumble anywhere.  All it will do in that circumstance is shake it's head.  I don't have in issue with a martial power dazing a dragon.  It's that they can't impart momentum to a creature of that size.  Even a strike to the knee won't do much other than maybe make it fall.

You realize you're just grasping at straws and any kind of credibility your arguments might ever have had has long since evaporated, right? There's really no point in continuing this discussion Max. We get it. You have some arcane and arbitrary hangup about some powers and you've dug your heels in and nobody will ever in a million years, no matter how cogent the arguments they make ever move you.

The fact is that to everyone else I see still bothering to post in this thread your criteria are utterly arbitrary and impossible to understand. In my opinion at least there are few, if any, fighter powers that in any way seem 'magical' at all. Some are more plausible than others, but they are all plausibly 'martial', and remember all of this is only even relevant if we accept your "fighters must not ever be even slightly magical" argument. I in actual fact think that argument is itself hogwash.

Fighters employ weapons and physical action. They rely on extreme physical training, internal discipline, and 'martial arts' (much of which in the oriental tradition is BTW framed in terms of mystical, if not outright magical, terms). There's nothing at all wrong with this coming across as 'supernormal'. In order for the martial power source to have a distinct style and feel to it martial powers should, and do, employ mostly melee-type attacks, usually target one or more targets the character can affect with his or her weapon, and generally deal untyped damage. That's really about it. In REAL PLAY martial characters feel and play quite differently from arcane, divine, psionic, or primal characters.

I don't believe there is really the slightest thing more to be said on this particular subject.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 5:12PM, greatfrito wrote:

"A dragon will never, ever, EVER in a million years (EVER!) take a step back from a Fighter."
"Why?  Bigger animals (and people) back away from smaller threats all the time - even things that aren't real threats.  So, why is that statement true?"
"Because Maxperson Says So."

I never said a dragon wouldn't step backwards.  I said the martial user couldn't force it without completely breaking physics or using martial "magic."  Those bigger animals choose to step backwards.  Similarly, a dragon might also choose to step away from the smaller threats, but it should be the DMs decision to have it do so.

We shouldn't even bother.  Basically it boils down to Maxperson doesnt think fighters cant do cool things... Even a level 30 Demigod with a 30 strength.

I mean Bahaumet himself only has a 31 strength... I guess even he couldnt move a dragon....

Edit for spelling. 

Dec 10, 2011 -- 5:53PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Maxperson doesnt think fighters can do cool thing...

Can you back up that statement with any facts?  quote me saying that please.

Even a level 30 Demigod with a 30 strength.

I mean Bahaumet himself only has a 31 strength... I guess even he couldnt move a dragon.... 

Ahh, so it's your position that having a 30 strength means that you can move 30 tons.  I hope your players know that so that they can abuse the hell out of that.  I know I would abuse it as a player.  I'd be picking up 4 ton rocks and throwing them through castles.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 5:56PM, Maxperson wrote:

Ahh, so it's your position that having a 30 strength means that you can move 30 tons.  I hope your players know that so that they can abuse the hell out of that.  I know I would abuse it as a player.  I'd be picking up 4 ton rocks and throwing them through castles.

of course not, but a level 30 strength could probably impart the force nessessary to cause a dragon to stmble back exactly where the expert demigod fighter wants him to.

And besides thats not how carrying capacity works, at best a 30 strength can do is drag 1500lbs.  heavy load of 600 lbs and a light load of 300.

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:00PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 5:56PM, Maxperson wrote:

Ahh, so it's your position that having a 30 strength means that you can move 30 tons.  I hope your players know that so that they can abuse the hell out of that.  I know I would abuse it as a player.  I'd be picking up 4 ton rocks and throwing them through castles.

of course not, but a level 30 strength could probably impart the force nessessary to cause a dragon to stmble back exactly where the expert demigod fighter wants him to.

And besides thats not how carrying capacity works, at best a 30 strength can do is drag 1500lbs.  heavy load of 600 lbs and a light load of 300.

I know that.  And so it is also not enough to impart momentum to something weighing many tons.  At least not in my opinion.  If you have fun with super hero games, great for you.  I like 4e, but there are parts of it that I feel are absurd.

The problem is not you saying it Max, its your actions. You can say you have no problems with awesome fighters all you want when you nit pick the actual awesome. Its the proning a gelatinous cube arguement all over again and I'm surprised people still humor you with it (except of course for not wanting your statements to stand unopposed if some new person were to read them).

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

I never said it had to be physical.  I said it was impossible to do physically without breaking physics and that non-physically would simply fail if reason was used to examine the method of non-physical push.  I have not seen a method of non-physical push given that would succeed without a lot of justification, and if you have to justify something, you have failed.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Maxperson wrote:

I know that.  And so it is also not enough to impart momentum to something weighing many tons.  At least not in my opinion.  If you have fun with super hero games, great for you.  I like 4e, but there are parts of it that I feel are absurd.

Im sorry you cant seem to grasp the idea that a martial push isnt litterally pushing a creature.  Push for all game elements is an abstract concept.

and yes ill keep my heroic fighters that actually can do heric things instead of being limited by the lowest imagination quotient at the table.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 5:49PM, Maxperson wrote:

Also, did you just claim that a martial character couldn't knock a dragon prone?

Nope   I just said that hitting it in the leg really hard wouldn't be enough in and of itself to do it.  In battle, I could see a dragon putting weight on a leg and having that leg taken out from under it by an attack.

So the dragon could fall prone, under those circumstances... but could never stumble 5 feet back.

I...
...

You're kidding at this point, right?  It's all an elaborate joke?  A farce?

Right?

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:06PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

I never said it had to be physical.  I said it was impossible to do physically without breaking physics and that non-physically would simply fail if reason was used to examine the method of non-physical push.  I have not seen a method of non-physical push given that would succeed without a lot of justification, and if you have to justify something, you have failed.

sorry dont buy it.  even in real life... not fantasy land we have martial arts which are all about using your opponents strenght against them.  In real life the only way to move someone is not to pick them up or physically push them.

I love the idea of a brawler fighter grappeling a dragon and throwing it around by using it against itself.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:51PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Welp, there isn't any argument here, anymore. Max will continue to say 4e Fighters break physics, while completely accepting how 3.5 Fighters break physics. He'll content that "hitting" someone isn't always hitting someone, but "pushing" something is ALWAYS pushing something. He'll continue to have double standards for his favoured edition, and refuse to admit that while even having similar power levels, Fighters with less options (because Fighters with options break physics) are worse than Wizards with more options.

Nono, it is even FUNNIER than that if you back up a bit and realize that this whole exchange arose out of the old "4e fighters are just like wizards, they do fantastical magical things!" meme.

Of course I'm not a 3.5 guru and don't have any 3.5 books but I'm PRETTY DARN SURE. I can make 3.5 fighter than can push a dragon, knock it prone (trip it), and probably a whole bunch of other unlikely things. I am 100% certain that my fighter can be made to jump incredible distances far beyond what any actual human could, swim 10 miles across a lake in plate armor, fall to the ground from 1000 miles high and walk away afterwards, etc. If I expand this to rogues I can have a rogue dodge a 10 megaton thermonuclear strike (admittedly out of genre, but still), and again do a whole large number of other things that are completely beyond any possible human capability, like climb across a smooth horizontal ceiling.

In fact I really have to seriously question whether or not there is ANY one specific thing that a 4e martial character can do that a 3.5 martial character cannot be built to do also. I'll assume there is SOMETHING, but I'm really rather unsure of what it is and even if there are a few things I'm also pretty sure there are plenty of things a 3.5 character can do without magic that a 4e character cannot, so it is really not like anything except slightly different rules oddities.

So the funny thing is Max's arguments are just as good for criticizing 3.5 or PF as they are for criticizing 4e! lol. Which brings us to the final amusing part, which is that he's rather well proven that there really isn't all that much difference between the two editions, at least as far as what characters can do. 3.5 martial characters are pretty awesome within their niche.

So thank you Max, your absolute pig-headed refusal to admit defeat has served us well! Its too bad some of your compatriots were wiser and simply withdrew from the bloodbath before it was too late or we might have achieved more, but ah well

Since I delayed in putting forth the motion that this thread be closed at page 100, I hereby now put forth the motion that this thread be closed at page 200.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:38PM, ciaran wrote:

Since I delayed in putting forth the motion that this thread be closed at page 100, I hereby now put forth the motion that this thread be closed at page 200.

It says it's on page 37 to me, so... we've got quite a ways to go yet.

But that's 163 pages away!

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:06PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

I never said it had to be physical.  I said it was impossible to do physically without breaking physics and that non-physically would simply fail if reason was used to examine the method of non-physical push.  I have not seen a method of non-physical push given that would succeed without a lot of justification, and if you have to justify something, you have failed.

lol, you should study some Judo Max. I've seen a 90lb woman move a 280 lb guy around like he was a chess piece. Now, is it really likely possible that any normal realistic human could make a multi-ton dragon move around by those techniques? Probably not, but we've already demonstrated that strict realism isn't the criteria here so I have to say you're standing on VERY VERY thin ice with this. Someone plausibly skilled enough in the proper techniques? Who's of a level appropriate to fight that dragon? Yeah, I think they could get that sucker to dance. It isn't about BRUTE FORCE Max. That 90lb woman didn't throw that guy around with strength. It is done with redirection, small forces applied at the right time and place to make your opponent's body move from here to over there. I can put a large man down from standing onto the ground and never exert more than 5lbs of force. Now extrapolate that to a dragon and a guy with a 30 STR. Of course you won't be convinced by ANYTHING, but your arguments are plain just shoddy. At least have the sense to retreat on that one and try retrenching somewhere else where you might at least save some vestige of dignity man.

Wait, why do you get to make that call? Heck, Mods don't even get to make that call as long as we aren't breaking rules. Unless it's against the rules to debate terribly. In which case, Max wouldn't have nearly as many posts.

Oh. I'm on page 145.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:42PM, ciaran wrote:

Oh. I'm on page 145.

If you set your posts per page to 2000 or so you'll still be on page 1

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:06PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

I never said it had to be physical.  I said it was impossible to do physically without breaking physics and that non-physically would simply fail if reason was used to examine the method of non-physical push.  I have not seen a method of non-physical push given that would succeed without a lot of justification, and if you have to justify something, you have failed.

Let's sum that up.

Maxperson demands a justification for Martial characters doing things that he claims violate the laws of physics.
Justifications are given.
Because justifications are given "we" have failed.

Nice one.

I think I've figured out Max's argument:
Fighters cannot make another player(or NPC) do anything, because it would violate the laws of physics or any other real world rationalization he can think of.
This type of rule doesn't apply to wizards, because they are magical.

The logic of the argument is based in one of the oldest (unwritten)rules of D&D(which 4E discarded): Wizards rule, fighters drool. 

Basically, the idea is to make rulings against fighters, because "that couldn't happen in real life," while ruling that wizards can do pretty much anything, because they are "magical."
 

Dec 10, 2011 -- 7:10PM, Dranack wrote:

I think I've figured out Max's argument:
Fighters cannot make another player(or NPC) do anything, because it would violate the laws of physics or any other real world rationalization he can think of.
This type of rule doesn't apply to wizards, because they are magical.

The logic of the argument is based in one of the oldest (unwritten)rules of D&D(which 4E discarded): Wizards rule, fighters drool. 

Basically, the idea is to make rulings against fighters, because "that couldn't happen in real life," while ruling that wizards can do pretty much anything, because they are "magical."
 

Weeeelllll, technically he's claiming he's not suggesting that he wants a disparity in power between fighters and wizards. I think what he's trying to aim at is basically fighters just hit things and do damage (and I suppose there are some arbitrary set of effects and whatnot that he likes, so those will 'quasi-realistic' enough, but I can't speculate on which ones). The hypothesis I suppose is that if a fighter does enough damage with his attacks (and potentially he's providing value with other class mechanics, he could be good at other things) then it makes the fighter equivalent to the wizard, so they're 'equal', at least in combat.

Personally I'm skeptical. No system I've ever seen in 35 years of playing RPGs has succeeded at this. In fact many have failed spectacularly. Nor have I even seen one that really ACTUALLY restricted PCs to purely realistic levels of performance. Something like CoC comes pretty close, but then it doesn't actually give you any other options except 'mundane person' and using magic is very stupid and kills you quickly.

In any case all this addresses is the basic raw combat situation, which unless you really ARE using your D&D as a skirmish game is only the tip of the iceberg. What about plot power? Unless you're now going to strip your wizard of any ability to provide buffs, use divination, or basically ANY other kind of non-combat magic that does anything that a normal person couldn't do then the wizard has an edge on the fighter again. In theory you can always give the fighter all sorts of other advantages like much better skills, better plot armor, etc. to try to make up for it, but it is even MORE dubiously balanceable than in the case of combat. In fact you might achieve a decent balance in a specific game with moderately weak magic and some plot advantages for the fighter types, but such a solution will A) mean really cutting magic down a good bit (something that 4e is already accused of), and B) it won't work as soon as some DM creates a setting that changes some of the underlying assumptions that the fighter's advantages rely on. Magic being magic is less likely to be invalidated and more likely to be freed of constraints since there are no LOGICAL constraints on it.

In other words he's claiming to advocate a solution that just really doesn't work. To the degree that it CAN work 4e has already done it. People can argue details of one or another specific bit of the implementation but the general approach WotC took is clearly sound, it succeeded. I've yet to hear anyone claim that one or another class was horribly shortchanged, though fighters did get dinked on skills some. Taking it to a further extreme though? I don't think it would be wise. You'd either have to make the setting basically non-magical or else casters would always have SOME level of advantage that can't be made up for.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 4:09PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Does this all stem from that same concept that "prone" can only mean "knocked on one's ass" that some people around here propose, and not "prone is a definition for a mechanical implication within the system, and any similarity to the real world concept of prone is coincidental"?

Somehow this just made me think of something, in White Knight Chronicles 2 you can knock a dragon prone by just whacking it with a sword, though the hit knocking it down has to be a hit in the head, and you have to make it vuneradle to being knocked prone by beating on it a bit  first, which I guess causes it to lose balance. 
But still look at that game.  

I was just really responding to the fact that he won't allow fighter attacks to be an abstraction, so no argument about how they "might" work will ever satisfy him.
I just am thinking that, as a DM, he doesn't like his players to have power, unless he allows them to - ie. the dragon will never get moved, unless he says so.
Because wizards are "magical," any spell satisfies his concept of what could happen, so he allows wizards to do whatever they want.
Its probably a DM power thing. Characters should not be allowed to move my monsters around, unless I let them, therefore I think of some draconian paradigm to keep this from happening. Because wizards are "magical," I will allow them to do this.
 

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

Shield Slam Fighter 3
You follow up a successful attack by slamming your shield into the enemy, knocking him aside.
Hit: You push the target 1 square and knock it prone.

To say that now all powers are really abstract and the fighter is not actually doing the actions seems a cop out.  I think it would be simpler to say there is a size limit to things you can push.
 

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:55PM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:42PM, ciaran wrote:

Oh. I'm on page 145.

If you set your posts per page to 2000 or so you'll still be on page 1

Maybe we could just close the thread when 5e comes out.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 10:47PM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

Shield Slam Fighter 3
You follow up a successful attack by slamming your shield into the enemy, knocking him aside.
Hit: You push the target 1 square and knock it prone.

To say that now all powers are really abstract and the fighter is not actually doing the actions seems a cop out.  I think it would be simpler to say there is a size limit to things you can push.
 

Or we can accept that there are ways to move larger creatures than yourself. And realize that the mechanics don't always have to follow what the fluff says.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 10:47PM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

Shield Slam Fighter 3
You follow up a successful attack by slamming your shield into the enemy, knocking him aside.
Hit: You push the target 1 square and knock it prone.

To say that now all powers are really abstract and the fighter is not actually doing the actions seems a cop out.  I think it would be simpler to say there is a size limit to things you can push.
 

So if I kick you in the shin you don't think it's conceivable you might loose your balance and/or step back?

You see no similarity whatsover to me kicking you in the shin and a fantasy MADE UP fighter bashing a shield into a fantasy MADE UP larger creatures shin?

Dec 10, 2011 -- 11:39PM, Zappy wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 10:47PM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

Shield Slam Fighter 3
You follow up a successful attack by slamming your shield into the enemy, knocking him aside.
Hit: You push the target 1 square and knock it prone.

To say that now all powers are really abstract and the fighter is not actually doing the actions seems a cop out.  I think it would be simpler to say there is a size limit to things you can push.
 

So if I kick you in the shin you don't think it's conceivable you might loose your balance and/or step back?

You see no similarity whatsover to me kicking you in the shin and a fantasy MADE UP fighter bashing a shield into a fantasy MADE UP larger creatures shin?

meh if fighters can push dragons around I don't really care, i'd prefer to put some kind of limit on physical powers, but its a preference and not that important to me.

just thought i would find an example.
 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:10AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 11:39PM, Zappy wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 10:47PM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

Shield Slam Fighter 3
You follow up a successful attack by slamming your shield into the enemy, knocking him aside.
Hit: You push the target 1 square and knock it prone.

To say that now all powers are really abstract and the fighter is not actually doing the actions seems a cop out.  I think it would be simpler to say there is a size limit to things you can push.
 

So if I kick you in the shin you don't think it's conceivable you might loose your balance and/or step back?

You see no similarity whatsover to me kicking you in the shin and a fantasy MADE UP fighter bashing a shield into a fantasy MADE UP larger creatures shin?

meh if fighters can push dragons around I don't really care, i'd prefer to put some kind of limit on physical powers, but its a preference and not that important to me.

just thought i would find an example.
 

Once again PUSH is a mechanical term. It is used to describe MECHANICAL game effects. It does not precisely define the flavor or fluff of what is happening. The flavor of the example power you found does not say push.

Looks like you found a bad example.

And by the way nice dodge.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:15AM, Zappy wrote:

Once again PUSH is a mechanical term. It is used to describe MECHANICAL game effects. It does not precisely define the flavor or fluff of what is happening. The flavor of the example power you found does not say push.

Looks like you found a bad example.

And by the way nice dodge.

Whenever you have to describe things in D&D as a mechanical game effect - its fail.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:59AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:15AM, Zappy wrote:

Once again PUSH is a mechanical term. It is used to describe MECHANICAL game effects. It does not precisely define the flavor or fluff of what is happening. The flavor of the example power you found does not say push.

Looks like you found a bad example.

And by the way nice dodge.

Whenever you have to describe things in D&D as a mechanical game effect - its fail.

You mean like saying a Bandit doesn't die when my Fighter delivers his 1d8 +3 hit with his sword because, you know, as a mechanical game effect, the Bandit only lost some Hit Points while my Fighter's sword never actually hit the enemy?

Because otherwise you will have to explain me how this Bandit took my blade in the face and was still standing.

Or how about explaining me the retaliation of said Bandit? How could he missed my Fighter? He was standing in front of HIM! I guess you could say the Bandit just couldn't touch my AC -3, but careful, that would be describing soemthing in D&D as a mechanical game effect, and we both know how much fail that involves.

Well then, fighters are also an abstraction, as is gold, a sword, the planet the game is run on.....everything is an abstraction.  Why play the game at all?  We can just do abstract stuff with our minds like some internet chat room.

Well... yes. Everything is, indeed, an abstraction. Thinking otherwise would be... delusional? To think anything going on in the D&D game in our mind is real... yeah I think delusional fits the bill quite well. It is all abstract. None of it is real. If you think any of it is, you might want to go visit a therapist.

The fact is, a dragon cannot be forced to move by a fighter no matter how you try to justify it, at least not without some sort of magic.

First, the actually true fact is, in D&D 4e, yes he can because the rules say so. It is merely your opinion that a Fighter cannot move a Dragon. The rules completely and unambiguously disagree with you.

Second, the Fighter doesn't force the Dragon to move. (but we've been saying this for at least 500 posts and you just keep saying "nuh-uh") It just gives the choice between "move backwards" and "try fighting without your head". It's the Dragon that decides that "moving backwards" is probably the best solution. Would you accept the power if it were written like this?

Tide of Iron:
(blabla)
Hit: Damage and the target chooses to move back 5 feet if sufficient space is available, or dies.

Because it's mechanically the same thing, except that now it's clear that the Fighter doesn't push (like in the actual resolving of the power) but merely makes the dragon automatically choose the least painful of two presented options. It's also a load of needless clutter only needed to please people who like to have their martials fit their very limited concept of "mundane", so I can imagine they didn't do it. Just wondering if it'd help you understand what is actually happening.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 3:24PM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 2:47PM, greatfrito wrote:

"You push the target X squares" does not mean "You physically push the target x squares" - one only has to look at non-martial options that use the same terminology to grasp that (beguilling strands pushes a target, without pushing a target).

Non-martial is magic and magic doesn't apply to this as it is not bound by physics at all.

Please explain Beastbane, a completely mundane item that generates a cloud of smoke that Slides all beasts in the zone without exerting any kind of force. And attacks Will.

I'll try to predict your answer: total silence or "well it's obviously magical".

Dec 9, 2011 -- 6:21PM, Panosl wrote:

>The Non-combat systems in 4e are as strong as they are in PF. And PF isn't outselling 4e. 4e has lead ICv2 for more quarters than PF has been around. Prove me otherwise.

Nope. Skill challenges do not work. Hence the largest non-combat element of 4e fails. One of many reasons why roleplay in 4e fails.

And since I keep talking about the combat, it's not good. It's slow, cumbersome, crunchy and dull. Having it doesn't improve the game at all.

And that's not what the evidence shows. Pathfinder is beating 4e. Suck it up.  

You have one source of debated evidence supporting the claim that PF is outselling 4e dnd. One. How many quarters does that source show that result? 

Oh, and how many people are using DDI, and subsequently buying fewer books? That's right, you don't know.

But I'll tell you what we do know. That one source you have, doesn't show PF outselling 4e by a large margin. That means that with the large sub base of DDI, what little evidence we have suggest that 4e is more popular than PF.

Suck it up.


And Skill Challenges work. You're wrong.

And the combat in 4e is fantastic. It is smooth, intuitive and engaging. Your talking out of your butt.  

Dec 11, 2011 -- 1:07AM, Dapifer wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:59AM, Cassan wrote:

Whenever you have to describe things in D&D as a mechanical game effect - its fail.

You mean like saying a Bandit doesn't die when my Fighter delivers his 1d8 +3 hit with his sword because, you know, as a mechanical game effect, the Bandit only lost some Hit Points while my Fighter's sword never actually hit the enemy?

Not the first time IN THIS THREAD he  has said something that made no sense. 

Everything that happens in a RPG is either fluff or a mechanical game effect, and its normally both.
There is the game effec for what just happened to the game state.
and gthe fluff for how htat translates into the games story.

Unfortunatly some people have issues seperating or merging the 2. 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:59AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:15AM, Zappy wrote:

Once again PUSH is a mechanical term. It is used to describe MECHANICAL game effects. It does not precisely define the flavor or fluff of what is happening. The flavor of the example power you found does not say push.

Looks like you found a bad example.

Whenever you have to describe things in D&D as a mechanical game effect - its fail.

Then I guess the entire game going back to first edition is fail. Because EVERYTHING is a mechanical effect.

EDIT: Giving Cassan the benefit of the doubt I decided to go back to 2nd Edition and see how many Wizard spells didnt fail. The result was 101 spells had no mechanical game effect description. That's good. Of course that's out of 312 total spells.

SO without further set up here it is. The Cassan approved non fail Wizard spell list.

1^st Level 14/45

Affect Normal Fires

Alarm

Cantrip

Change Self

Comprehend Languages

Dancing Lights

Detect Undead

Mending

Message

Mount

Read Magic

Tenser's Floating Disc

Unseen Servant

Wall of Fog

2^nd Level 12/43

Alter Self

Continual Light

Darkness

Deeppockets

Detect Invisibility

Fog Cloud

Knock

Leomund's Trap

Locate Object

Rope Trick

Whispering Wind

Wizard Lock

3^rd Level 10/36

Clairaudience

Clairvoyance

Delude

Feign Death

Gust of Wind

Infravision

Leomund's Tiny Hut

Protection from Evil

Shrink Item

Water Breathing

4^th Level 11/42

Hallucinatory Terrain

Illusionary Wall

Leomund's Secure Shelter

Magic Mirror

Massmorph

Minor Creation

Plant Growth

Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer

Solid Fog

Vacancy

Wizard Eye

5^th Level 17/40

Airy Water

Avoidance

Contact Other Plane

Distance Distortion

Dream

Fabricate

Leomund's Secret Chest

Magic Jar

Major Creation

Passwall

Seeming

Sending

Stone Shape

Teleport

Transmute Rock to Mud

Wall of Iron

Wall of Stone

6^th Level 11/40

Eyebite

Glassee

Lower Water

Mirage Arcana

Move Earth

Project Image

Reincarnation

Repulsion

Stone to Flesh

Transmute Water to Dust

Veil

7^th Level 12/26

Charm Plants

Drawmij's Instant Summons

Forcecage

Limited Wish

Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion

Phase Door

Reverse Gravity

Sequester

Shadow Walk

Spell Turning

Statue

Vanish

8^th Level 6/22

Binding

Clone

Glassteel

Maze

Prismatic Wall

Screen

9^th Level 8/18

Astral Spell

Crystalbrittle

Foresight

Gate

Imprisonment

Succor

Temporal Stasis

Weird

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:59AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:15AM, Zappy wrote:

Once again PUSH is a mechanical term. It is used to describe MECHANICAL game effects. It does not precisely define the flavor or fluff of what is happening. The flavor of the example power you found does not say push.

Looks like you found a bad example.

And by the way nice dodge.

Whenever you have to describe things in D&D as a mechanical game effect - its fail.

I dont get this.  All editions of D&D are a game, and games have mechanics.  If D&D didnt have mechanics it wouldnt be a game.

Without mechanical description we'd have no way to communicate what happens.

"I swing my sword at his head and narrowly miss him but follow up with a punch to the face."

Without any kind of mechanics the above description means nothing.  Without the mechanics of dice we'd never know if that above line was a hit or miss since HP is abstract.  We'd never know how much damage is dealt and we'd never know if anything else happened to the monster.

without mechanics we dont know what happens in the game.

So no, you dont fail when you describe things in a machanical fashion.  Without it the words are just a random story that has nothing to do with D&D the game.  Without knowing that the fighter had spent his last surge in order to get back up the description:

"He raised his head using every last ounce of strenght he had left in him to stand and face his foe again"

Doesnt mean anything in the game.  sure it sounds nice but no one you would know that the fighter was just shy of negative bloodied and he rolled a 20 on his death save in order to spen a surge and get back into the fight.

Without mechanical descriptions we just have a bunch of stories without any kind of reference to how they actually worked.
 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 2:52AM, Zappy wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:59AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:15AM, Zappy wrote:

Once again PUSH is a mechanical term. It is used to describe MECHANICAL game effects. It does not precisely define the flavor or fluff of what is happening. The flavor of the example power you found does not say push.

Looks like you found a bad example.

Whenever you have to describe things in D&D as a mechanical game effect - its fail.

Then I guess the entire game going back to first edition is fail. Because EVERYTHING is a mechanical effect.

EDIT: Giving Cassan the benefit of the doubt I decided to go back to 2nd Edition and see how many Wizard spells didnt fail. The result was 101 spells had no mechanical game effect description. That's good. Of course that's out of 312 total spells.

SO without further set up here it is. The Cassan approved non fail Wizard spell list.

1^st Level 14/45

Affect Normal Fires

Alarm

Cantrip

Change Self

Comprehend Languages

Dancing Lights

Detect Undead

Mending

Message

Mount

Read Magic

Tenser's Floating Disc

Unseen Servant

Wall of Fog

2^nd Level 12/43

Alter Self

Continual Light

Darkness

Deeppockets

Detect Invisibility

Fog Cloud

Knock

Leomund's Trap

Locate Object

Rope Trick

Whispering Wind

Wizard Lock

3^rd Level 10/36

Clairaudience

Clairvoyance

Delude

Feign Death

Gust of Wind

Infravision

Leomund's Tiny Hut

Protection from Evil

Shrink Item

Water Breathing

4^th Level 11/42

Hallucinatory Terrain

Illusionary Wall

Leomund's Secure Shelter

Magic Mirror

Massmorph

Minor Creation

Plant Growth

Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer

Solid Fog

Vacancy

Wizard Eye

5^th Level 17/40

Airy Water

Avoidance

Contact Other Plane

Distance Distortion

Dream

Fabricate

Leomund's Secret Chest

Magic Jar

Major Creation

Passwall

Seeming

Sending

Stone Shape

Teleport

Transmute Rock to Mud

Wall of Iron

Wall of Stone

6^th Level 11/40

Eyebite

Glassee

Lower Water

Mirage Arcana

Move Earth

Project Image

Reincarnation

Repulsion

Stone to Flesh

Transmute Water to Dust

Veil

7^th Level 12/26

Charm Plants

Drawmij's Instant Summons

Forcecage

Limited Wish

Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion

Phase Door

Reverse Gravity

Sequester

Shadow Walk

Spell Turning

Statue

Vanish

8^th Level 6/22

Binding

Clone

Glassteel

Maze

Prismatic Wall

Screen

9^th Level 8/18

Astral Spell

Crystalbrittle

Foresight

Gate

Imprisonment

Succor

Temporal Stasis

Weird

Awww you are making me reminisce of when D&D was D&D...

If only we could modernize it we would have 5e !

 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:01AM, Cassan wrote:

Awww you are making me reminisce of when D&D was D&D...

If only we could modernize it we would have 5e !

 

The point was that edition of D&D is a two thirds failure.  as not even one third of the spels dont fail as you put them because they reference mechanics. 

Dec 10, 2011 -- 11:08PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 10:47PM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

Shield Slam Fighter 3
You follow up a successful attack by slamming your shield into the enemy, knocking him aside.
Hit: You push the target 1 square and knock it prone.

To say that now all powers are really abstract and the fighter is not actually doing the actions seems a cop out.  I think it would be simpler to say there is a size limit to things you can push.
 

Or we can accept that there are ways to move larger creatures than yourself. And realize that the mechanics don't always have to follow what the fluff says.

Thank you for a good response.  And I get and respect your opinion Doctor.

But that is precisely my issue with 'mechanics'.  

And I think you have helped crystallize one point of how 4e has lost the feel of D&D.

Its an overused word in the forums because in 4e the spells, and martial powers are all about the mechanics - not about the fluff.

But in 2e it was not called fluff, the wording of what exactly occured actually mattered, the actions occuring, how it occurred mattered, the context mattered.

Now with all the powers nothing matters except the mechnanics.

The fluff is an italicised description that does not matter.

All that matters is that you inflicted x damage, created y condition and moved the opponent z squares.

I repeat.

All that matters is that you inflicted x damage, created y condition and moved the opponent z squares.

What you are doing is inconsequential, the name of the spell/power is forgettable, the description is ignored.

It was never that way.

It became that way because, well the game became a tactical tabletop miniature movement game instead of a RPG.  

Sure thats not the whole story, but its one aspect that has lost the feel of D&D.

Now is there anything wrong with a tactical, strategic combat game - nothing - I like that type of game too, just as I like chess.  Adding on dice roll resolution over roleplay in the form of 'skill challenges' has obviously attracted a lot of kids but its not in the spirit of the original D&D.

And unless 5e can recapture the feel I suspect that Pathfinder will continue to grow with RPG players.
 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:03AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:01AM, Cassan wrote:

Awww you are making me reminisce of when D&D was D&D...

If only we could modernize it we would have 5e !

 

The point was that edition of D&D is a two thirds failure.  as not even one third of the spels dont fail as you put them because they reference mechanics. 

Probably more, once you factor in suppliments.  

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:03AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:01AM, Cassan wrote:

Awww you are making me reminisce of when D&D was D&D...

If only we could modernize it we would have 5e !

 

The point was that edition of D&D is a two thirds failure.  as not even one third of the spels dont fail as you put them because they reference mechanics. 

per my other post above, having mechanics is not the problem, its when you have a small number of mechanics - x damage, y condition, move z squares and make those mechanics the only thing that matters, makes for a dull game.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

Its an overused word in the forums because in 4e the spells, and martial powers are all about the mechanics - not about the fluff. 

because fluff is and should be mutable. 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

But in 2e it was not called fluff, the wording of what exactly occured actually mattered, the actions occuring, how it occurred mattered, the context mattered.

noit as much as you would think. plenty of people would focus on the mechanics of the spells. the color of gthe fireball did not matter only who was effected and to what extent. 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

Now with all the powers nothing matters except the mechnanics.

No the fluff still matters

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

The fluff is an italicised description that does not matter.

the italics is sample fluff, which lessens its value but does not remove it, the fluff is whatever the group wants it to be. 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

All that matters is that you inflicted x damage, created y condition and moved the opponent z squares.

Not to the story. 
The mechanics are important for the game state which is required by it being a game with rules,
the fluff it required for the story, now if your group cares nothing for the story, the fluff does not matter, but if like 95+% of the time the the description can be summed up in 2 lines (as all you need is enough for the player to get a mental picture), then a paragraph of description is just wasted space and stuff that the majority of players just gloss over.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

I repeat.

All that matters is that you inflicted x damage, created y condition and moved the opponent z squares.

repeting a falsehood does not make it true

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

What you are doing is inconsequential, the name of the spell/power is forgettable, the description is ignored.

in a bad group maybe, but allot of powers stand out. anyone who has every played a group with a PHB1 ranger knows what Twin Strike is. 
Same for anyone who has ever gotten into their powers. 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

It was never that way.

actually non casters it was that way, an for casters there were always spells that blended together.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

It became that way because, well the game became a tactical tabletop miniature movement game instead of a RPG.  

It is still a farking RPG, if anything the separation of fluff and mechanics INCREASES the role playing potential, as it gives the group more freedom. Unless you need the training wheels to role play. 

By being the first edition that says "here are your abilities, now what do they look like?", 4th Edition has actually seperated the people who like the game to roleplay for them from the people who like to actually roleplay.

If you think that "it's all about the mechanics", then that means you never took the time to actually generate a character. You just wrote down some mechanics, realised "omg the game does not roleplay my character for me" and then chalked it up as a problem with the game.

That's an interesting conclusion. I can understand wanting to go back to the time where the game held your hand throughout and explained exactly how you should roleplay effects, rather then this modern game which just says "this is what's going to happen, now how does your character accomplish it?".

Some people like hand holding. Others prefer actual roleplay. 

Cassan,

It seems that you dislike the fact that 4E can be played as a tactical boardgame, but you are making the argument that it is always played as a tactical boardgame.  It makes me think that your issue isn't so much with the system as with your group.
I can say with all honesty that the fluff is much more important to my group than the mechanics.  No one uses the actual name of the power beyond the first use (so that everyone at the table knows that is really happening) and everyone comes up with their own very flavorful fluff to describe what they are doing.
Perhaps you don't like the idea of mutable fluff, but for my group it is great.  It allows them to be creative and as a result they get a lot more enjoyment out of combat.
So, rather than continue to try to convince us of something that we know is false (that 4E powers are just about the numbers), why don't you try to convince your group of the opposite (that 4E powers can involve just as much fluff and flavor as spells from 2E, but the creativity is now up to you, the Player).

Does anyone remember what the description of a fireball was, outside of the fact that it dealt damage(the mechanical descriptor). Maybe things caught fire(another mechanical descriptor)?

Cassan - are you arguing that 3.5 is also "not D&D", because the condition list was entirely mechanical? Spells could - daze, nauseate, sicken, frighten, panic, etc. There was a whole list of conditions in the DMG(I think around page 300) that took a description from a spell or feat and gave you the mechanic for that description. How is pushed any different from frightened?

This is getting to be like that old argument that, back in the day, people had more imagination, because they didn't have TV, and they had to think. Rubbish.

In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small D&D was real D&D.
 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:01AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Cassan,

It seems that you dislike the fact that 4E can be played as a tactical boardgame, but you are making the argument that it is always played as a tactical boardgame.  It makes me think that your issue isn't so much with the system as with your group.
I can say with all honesty that the fluff is much more important to my group than the mechanics.  No one uses the actual name of the power beyond the first use (so that everyone at the table knows that is really happening) and everyone comes up with their own very flavorful fluff to describe what they are doing.
Perhaps you don't like the idea of mutable fluff, but for my group it is great.  It allows them to be creative and as a result they get a lot more enjoyment out of combat.
So, rather than continue to try to convince us of something that we know is false (that 4E powers are just about the numbers), why don't you try to convince your group of the opposite (that 4E powers can involve just as much fluff and flavor as spells from 2E, but the creativity is now up to you, the Player).

I agree 4e can be all that.

Experience roleplayers can make decent roleplay out of any edition, probably any game.

But especially for the new generation 4e has thrust us into a different direction from the original and its a common thing for people to think that it plays like a board game versus a RPG.


 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:59AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 12:15AM, Zappy wrote:

Once again PUSH is a mechanical term. It is used to describe MECHANICAL game effects. It does not precisely define the flavor or fluff of what is happening. The flavor of the example power you found does not say push.

Looks like you found a bad example.

And by the way nice dodge.

Whenever you have to describe things in D&D as a mechanical game effect - its fail.

So, it was so much better in previous editions where there was no standard term for it but "moving a creature away from you" was still something that came up a slew of times in different effects. Except of course in each case the DM had to read through a big long description of how it worked for THAT spell or feat. WOW that was good game design!!!! (or maybe it was stinky FAIL).

There's nothing "fail" about having standard game elements. What is "fail" are the people who are too pathetically unimaginative to even describe how a dragon could be moved back by a fighter.

Beyond that not only is 'push' an abstraction in the sense that it is just a term used to describe a form of movement on the grid (already a somewhat abstract construct), but you've failed to grasp that powers are narrative plot coupons used by the players to construct a combat narrative. Max for instance objects that "well, how does the fighter control which way the dragon stumbles", but he's UTTERLY MISSED THE POINT OF POWERS when he says that. The CHARACTER isn't, necessarily, controlling anything. The player OTOH most certainly is, and the rules say the player gets to use his plot coupon to move the dragon away from his character! lol.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:05AM, Dranack wrote:

Does anyone remember what the description of a fireball was, outside of the fact that it dealt damage(the mechanical descriptor). Maybe things caught fire(another mechanical descriptor)?

Cassan - are you arguing that 3.5 is also "not D&D", because the condition list was entirely mechanical? Spells could - daze, nauseate, sicken, frighten, panic, etc. There was a whole list of conditions in the DMG(I think around page 300) that took a description from a spell or feat and gave you the mechanic for that description. How is pushed any different from frightened?
 

I've not played 3.5 but I read that its reliance on precision placement of miniatures is a lot less than 4e.

Frightened is much more frightening?

Its not the fact that there is conditions, its the fact that the powers are mostly only about x damage, y conditions and z squares.

I guess I miss having more variety when creativity was king, and common sense was the rule.

Its almost like all the rules lawyers got together and said if you cant translate it into a movement, one of a limited list of conditions or multiple of Weapon damage then you cannot have it.

I guess I want my cake and eat it - I want precision but I want more variety, I want tactics and strategy but I dont want to feel like I'm playing warhammer.

Perhaps its too tall an order. 

But especially for the new generation 4e has thrust us into a different direction from the original and its a common thing for people to think that it plays like a board game versus a RPG.

It's a common thing to think for people who aren't trying. It doesn't feel that way at all for my groups.

If you're not trying, you're unlikely to get much out of any game. Except Farmville. That's most fun if you don't try, and gets progressively less fun when you put effort into it.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 6:13AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 11:08PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 10:47PM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:03PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Max I'd like a quote please to shows that a martial push is a physical push.  Where does it say that a martial push is a push in the strictest sense of the word.

Push, pull and slide are forced movement and I cant find any kind of quote that a fighter that pushes is physically pushing a creature and not forceing it to move through manuvers or attacks that might cause it to back off or any other kind of thing that you keep disreguarding.

Shield Slam Fighter 3
You follow up a successful attack by slamming your shield into the enemy, knocking him aside.
Hit: You push the target 1 square and knock it prone.

To say that now all powers are really abstract and the fighter is not actually doing the actions seems a cop out.  I think it would be simpler to say there is a size limit to things you can push.
 

Or we can accept that there are ways to move larger creatures than yourself. And realize that the mechanics don't always have to follow what the fluff says.

Thank you for a good response.  And I get and respect your opinion Doctor.

But that is precisely my issue with 'mechanics'.  

And I think you have helped crystallize one point of how 4e has lost the feel of D&D.

Its an overused word in the forums because in 4e the spells, and martial powers are all about the mechanics - not about the fluff.

But in 2e it was not called fluff, the wording of what exactly occured actually mattered, the actions occuring, how it occurred mattered, the context mattered.

Now with all the powers nothing matters except the mechnanics.

The fluff is an italicised description that does not matter.

All that matters is that you inflicted x damage, created y condition and moved the opponent z squares.

I repeat.

All that matters is that you inflicted x damage, created y condition and moved the opponent z squares.

What you are doing is inconsequential, the name of the spell/power is forgettable, the description is ignored.

It was never that way.

It became that way because, well the game became a tactical tabletop miniature movement game instead of a RPG.  

Sure thats not the whole story, but its one aspect that has lost the feel of D&D.

Now is there anything wrong with a tactical, strategic combat game - nothing - I like that type of game too, just as I like chess.  Adding on dice roll resolution over roleplay in the form of 'skill challenges' has obviously attracted a lot of kids but its not in the spirit of the original D&D.

And unless 5e can recapture the feel I suspect that Pathfinder will continue to grow with RPG players.
 

Here's the problem with this. It isn't true. There's NOTHING in 4e that ever says narrative in-game reality doesn't matter. Find me even one sentance in the rules that ever say "game takes preference over story". It doesn't exist. It would be absurd.

I think the REAL problem is that in the past nobody had a game that was worth beans. So D&D players basically got used to idea that the game was this vague hand-wavy semi-useless mass of conflicting statements (this is literally true of AD&D, though less so of 3.5). Thus they never had to address the question of whether they were telling a story or playing a game because D&D, frankly, was unplayable in any sense as a game. Of course that isn't a problem in and of itself as far a the activity of playing D&D goes. You perforce use the rules when they're convenient as a structure, and they work well enough to measure resource use and tracking, which is really by far the most useful thing they can do (after all hit points were the very first stat things had, even before ability scores).

When you actually have a game that WORKS all of a sudden these people don't know what to do. It is like they lose their minds and start playing a GAME instead playing D&D. Why is this? I'll not speculate. The point is that if you have this issue, it isn't an issue with 4e, it is an issue with you and your friends sitting around the table and turning 4e into a skirmish game where the rules trump the narrative. Don't do that. You won't have any problems. If you think that a certain fighter in a certain situation shouldn't be able to push a certain dragon then JUST PLAY IT THAT WAY!!!!

The game part of the activity is just there to provide a set of rules you can wrap around the various situaitons that come up in your narrative play. The problem with AD&D spells for instance was that you had no idea what they did, so all everyone could do was argue about it the DM was stuck in the roll of 'mother' giving or denying permission for things, but without any objective idea of how it might have been intended to be used. The DM can STILL make those decisions, but NOW the DM has been given a tool by which to objectively measure and be able to say "well, when I set up the narrative so the fighter can't do X, Y, or Z, that's taking something away from the baseline for the fighter"

So, the situation we have is that the disadvantages of the way 4e does it are in your head. They EXIST, but they aren't created by the game. OTOH the disadvantages of a system without good rules structure are very much concrete, because nobody has access to a way to correct it. Its ACTUALLY flawed, you can't just play 3.5 a little bit different and everything is fine because it requires the DM to constantly decide what everything means ALL THE TIME.

Get it?

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:41AM, Cassan wrote:

Its almost like all the rules lawyers got together and said if you cant translate it into a movement, one of a limited list of conditions or multiple of Weapon damage then you cannot have it.

You've made the claim before to not being out to invalidate martial characters. However right along side of that you want to totally eliminate everything they can do. So let's hear it. Please give me an example of a "creative" power for the martial character of your choice (I'd prefer Fighter though). Any level. Base class, Paragon path or Epic Destiny. Encounter or Daily. If the creators of the game are so uncreative please enlighten us as to how it "should be".

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:41AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:05AM, Dranack wrote:

Does anyone remember what the description of a fireball was, outside of the fact that it dealt damage(the mechanical descriptor). Maybe things caught fire(another mechanical descriptor)?

Cassan - are you arguing that 3.5 is also "not D&D", because the condition list was entirely mechanical? Spells could - daze, nauseate, sicken, frighten, panic, etc. There was a whole list of conditions in the DMG(I think around page 300) that took a description from a spell or feat and gave you the mechanic for that description. How is pushed any different from frightened?
 

I've not played 3.5 but I read that its reliance on precision placement of miniatures is a lot less than 4e.

Frightened is much more frightening?

Its not the fact that there is conditions, its the fact that the powers are mostly only about x damage, y conditions and z squares.

I guess I miss having more variety when creativity was king, and common sense was the rule.

Its almost like all the rules lawyers got together and said if you cant translate it into a movement, one of a limited list of conditions or multiple of Weapon damage then you cannot have it.

I guess I want my cake and eat it - I want precision but I want more variety, I want tactics and strategy but I dont want to feel like I'm playing warhammer.

Perhaps its too tall an order. 

Having played 3.5 alot, and 4E a little, I can tell you that both require exactly the same amount of reliance on precision placement of miniatures - exactly as much as you want to rely on them.

In 3.5, there are conditions. Prone, for example, is a condition. In 3.5, you make a trip attack, and knock someone prone. Being prone means that you take penalties to attack, defense, etc. You have to make a move action to stand up again, and anyone adjacent(in the next square) has an AoO against you.

The only difference between this kind of attack and a 4E power is the way in which the material is presented.
You have 2 issues with powers:
1 - Formatting. The way powers are written is standard, which gives the illusion that they are all the same.
2 - Player power. Powers put part of the narrative in the hands of the players. "The rules say I can do this!" In old school D&D, the power was entirely in the hands of the DM, for better or worse. You lived or died at his discretion. If you tried to trip the Ogre, he determined the outcome entirely.

So, you have valid points about why it feels different. The question, then, becomes whether that is positive or negative. If you like having the DM control pretty much everything, then go old school. That type of gameplay has largely left the modern RPG world, as far as I can tell. You can find 1E/2E clones for the old school niche, but the way RPGs are built now has changed.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:32AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:01AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Cassan,

It seems that you dislike the fact that 4E can be played as a tactical boardgame, but you are making the argument that it is always played as a tactical boardgame.  It makes me think that your issue isn't so much with the system as with your group.
I can say with all honesty that the fluff is much more important to my group than the mechanics.  No one uses the actual name of the power beyond the first use (so that everyone at the table knows that is really happening) and everyone comes up with their own very flavorful fluff to describe what they are doing.
Perhaps you don't like the idea of mutable fluff, but for my group it is great.  It allows them to be creative and as a result they get a lot more enjoyment out of combat.
So, rather than continue to try to convince us of something that we know is false (that 4E powers are just about the numbers), why don't you try to convince your group of the opposite (that 4E powers can involve just as much fluff and flavor as spells from 2E, but the creativity is now up to you, the Player).

I agree 4e can be all that.

Experience roleplayers can make decent roleplay out of any edition, probably any game.

But especially for the new generation 4e has thrust us into a different direction from the original and its a common thing for people to think that it plays like a board game versus a RPG.


 

So, your answer, instead of say LEARNING HOW TO RP, is to trash the system? You already HAVE a system that does everything you apparently want, PF or good ole' 3.5, but you're BOUND AND DETERMINED that the game that actually opens things up and lets you do it however you want as long as you're willing to spend a little mental effort and imagination has to be gutted and turned back into the game where all you can cast is a fireball and it has to be exactly a fireball and heaven help anyone that might want to describe it slightly differently because there's no way to disentangle the description from what it does...

Feh!

Dec 11, 2011 -- 8:36AM, Zappy wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:41AM, Cassan wrote:

Its almost like all the rules lawyers got together and said if you cant translate it into a movement, one of a limited list of conditions or multiple of Weapon damage then you cannot have it.

You've made the claim before to not being out to invalidate martial characters. However right along side of that you want to totally eliminate everything they can do. So let's hear it. Please give me an example of a "creative" power for the martial character of your choice (I'd prefer Fighter though). Any level. Base class, Paragon path or Epic Destiny. Encounter or Daily. If the creators of the game are so uncreative please enlighten us as to how it "should be".

Designing games is hard, its not that any of the existing ones are not creative - its just that as a whole the list is not very extensive as to the different types of effects each power has.

As to the solution thats where a game designer needs to come up with something innovative not me - I would suck at designing games.

Personally the challenge I would give down for the melee fighters is make the powers scale more, make them more unique, and come up with a different way to make the powers effective in combat.  A different way to make the choice strategic.  

This reminds me of something else that bothers me with the melee classes.  In 2e magic users would have spells that they memorized, priests would have spells that they preyed for.  So in either case it made sense why they had a specific list.

Now I have no issue with casters having at will or encounter powers but it seems wierd that melee classes have encounter and daily powers - why force them to 'pick one' that they can only use on that particular day - I mean why can the fighter do a particular melee manoever one day but not another day.  

Why not have a smaller list that are very unique, strategic, with a wide variety of tactical effect that they can pick from dynamically.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:11AM, Cassan wrote:

This reminds me of something else that bothers me with the melee classes.  In 2e magic users would have spells that they memorized, priests would have spells that they preyed for.  So in either case it made sense why they had a specific list.

Now I have no issue with casters having at will or encounter powers but it seems wierd that melee classes have encounter and daily powers - why force them to 'pick one' that they can only use on that particular day - I mean why can the fighter do a particular melee manoever one day but not another day.  

he just learned it???
Outside of wizards spellbooks PCs only change powers at leverl up, which normally represents training and practice to master new/improve skills. 
a chatracter could lose a power if he stops practicing it and focuses on another move (in a sense he gets rusty and page 42 is the closest he can now get) but het gets good at the new skill.  

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:08PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 5:49PM, Maxperson wrote:

Also, did you just claim that a martial character couldn't knock a dragon prone?

Nope   I just said that hitting it in the leg really hard wouldn't be enough in and of itself to do it.  In battle, I could see a dragon putting weight on a leg and having that leg taken out from under it by an attack.

So the dragon could fall prone, under those circumstances... but could never stumble 5 feet back.

Something that massive could fall straight down with no momentum, but not 5 feet back.  If another dragon hit it like that it could be pushed back physically, but that's because it got hit by something massive enough to impart momentum.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:11AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 8:36AM, Zappy wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:41AM, Cassan wrote:

Its almost like all the rules lawyers got together and said if you cant translate it into a movement, one of a limited list of conditions or multiple of Weapon damage then you cannot have it.

You've made the claim before to not being out to invalidate martial characters. However right along side of that you want to totally eliminate everything they can do. So let's hear it. Please give me an example of a "creative" power for the martial character of your choice (I'd prefer Fighter though). Any level. Base class, Paragon path or Epic Destiny. Encounter or Daily. If the creators of the game are so uncreative please enlighten us as to how it "should be".

Designing games is hard, its not that any of the existing ones are not creative - its just that as a whole the list is not very extensive as to the different types of effects each power has.

The truth is though there are only so many conditions and effects that can be created before the game gets bogged down. Blinded, Dazed, Deafened, Dominated, Dying, Helpless, Immobilized, Marked, Petrified, Prone, Restrained, Slowed, Stunned, Surprised, Unconcious, and Weakened are all of the possible conditions. Then there's movement Push, Pull and Slide. I can't think of anything else that is not just another word for one of them. And of course there's damage. After all the fuss that was made about Martial characters using the push mechanic now there is call for them to do more things?

As to the solution thats where a game designer needs to come up with something innovative not me - I would suck at designing games.

Personally the challenge I would give down for the melee fighters is make the powers scale more, make them more unique, and come up with a different way to make the powers effective in combat.  A different way to make the choice strategic.  

This reminds me of something else that bothers me with the melee classes.  In 2e magic users would have spells that they memorized, priests would have spells that they preyed for.  So in either case it made sense why they had a specific list.

Now I have no issue with casters having at will or encounter powers but it seems wierd that melee classes have encounter and daily powers - why force them to 'pick one' that they can only use on that particular day - I mean why can the fighter do a particular melee manoever one day but not another day.  

Why not have a smaller list that are very unique, strategic, with a wide variety of tactical effect that they can pick from dynamically.

That's actually how it (still) works. The Martial classes pick a power from those available when they level up. Then in any given encounter they can use any one they want provided it isn't a daily they already used that day or an encounter they already used in that encounter. Wizards in 4E get more at each level but must pick on each day which are available to cast in the encounters that day.

Dec 10, 2011 -- 11:08PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Or we can accept that there are ways to move larger creatures than yourself. And realize that the mechanics don't always have to follow what the fluff says.

Fluff cannot be divorced from mechanics.  The mechanic either needs to match the fluff, or vice versa.  You can change either one or both, so long as they end up matching each other.  If you try to divorce them, you end up with a game that can have powers like:

Fluff: The odor of cheese wafts from the wizards lunch ridden mouth.

Mechanic: Target take 50 points of fire damage.

Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other and the power is complete  nonsense. 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:35AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 7:09PM, Zappy wrote:

Let's sum that up.

Maxperson demands good reasons for Martial characters doing things that he claims violate the laws of physics.
Weak justifications are given.
Because  weak justifications are given "we" have failed.

Nice one.

Edited for Maxperson's opinions.

Edited for accuracy.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:42AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 11:08PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Or we can accept that there are ways to move larger creatures than yourself. And realize that the mechanics don't always have to follow what the fluff says.

Fluff cannot be divorced from mechanics.  The mechanic either needs to match the fluff, or vice versa.  You can change either one or both, so long as they end up matching each other.  If you try to divorce them, you end up with a game that can have powers like:

Fluff: The odor of cheese wafts from the wizards lunch ridden mouth.

Mechanic: Target take 50 points of fire damage.

Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other and the power is complete  nonsense. 

And that's why powers like that don't and won't exist. What we do have is a bunch of weapon powers, a bunch of elemental damage powers, a bunch of psychic powers, a bunch of "spirity" powers etc.

What your are suggesting is the classic logic fallacy of slippery slope.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 2:18AM, Pluisjen wrote:

[Well... yes. Everything is, indeed, an abstraction. Thinking otherwise would be... delusional? To think anything going on in the D&D game in our mind is real... yeah I think delusional fits the bill quite well. It is all abstract. None of it is real. If you think any of it is, you might want to go visit a therapist.

Nice try Plu, but imaginary does not equal abstract.  That's why they are two different words with two different definitions.

First, the actually true fact is, in D&D 4e, yes he can because the rules say so. It is merely your opinion that a Fighter cannot move a Dragon. The rules completely and unambiguously disagree with you.

Actually the rule don't say that.  The rules say martial characters use martial magic.  Even WoTC didn't try to claim fighters can push dragons through sheer unmagical ability.

Second, the Fighter doesn't force the Dragon to move. (but we've been saying this for at least 500 posts and you just keep saying "nuh-uh") It just gives the choice between "move backwards" and "try fighting without your head". It's the Dragon that decides that "moving backwards" is probably the best solution. Would you accept the power if it were written like this?

When the dragon can just lift its head out of reach.  No.

Because it's mechanically the same thing, except that now it's clear that the Fighter doesn't push (like in the actual resolving of the power) but merely makes the dragon automatically choose the least painful of two presented options.

Heh.  That's such a broken power it's not even funny.  Arrange it so that a creature can't move and it's auto-kill in one swing. 

Please explain Beastbane, a completely mundane item that generates a cloud of smoke that Slides all beasts in the zone without exerting any kind of force. And attacks Will.

Okay.  The answer is.....I never claimed that there was only one thing wrong with 4e

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:42AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 11:08PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Or we can accept that there are ways to move larger creatures than yourself. And realize that the mechanics don't always have to follow what the fluff says.

Fluff cannot be divorced from mechanics.  The mechanic either needs to match the fluff, or vice versa.  You can change either one or both, so long as they end up matching each other. 

They can not be divorced, but the relationship needs to be properly understood. 
Mechanics is the change in the game state state X becomes state Y
Fluff is how the story explains the change in game state.  Alsong as it explains state X becoming state Y the fluff works. 

Max has clearly never seen a person or creature stumble, nor an object list to the side when it becomes unstable.

I guess that's why he thinks it's all make-believe, then.


But again, you do realize, Max, that it's not that "it doesn't make sense because Physics!" at this point, but rather "it doesn't make sense because I say so!".

You are, sir, the grand arbiter of dragon-physics, apparently.  We get it.  Your dragons don't obey any kind of realistic laws of physics themselves, and thus cannot, ever, be made to move without them saying "Y'know, I want to move here."  Even though they can be made to fall down, just fine.  Just only in their current space.  They can never fall into an adjacent space.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:51AM, sjmcc13 wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:42AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 11:08PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Or we can accept that there are ways to move larger creatures than yourself. And realize that the mechanics don't always have to follow what the fluff says.

Fluff cannot be divorced from mechanics.  The mechanic either needs to match the fluff, or vice versa.  You can change either one or both, so long as they end up matching each other. 

They can not be divorced, but the relationship needs to be properly understood. 
Mechanics is the change in the game state state X becomes state Y
Fluff is how the story explains the change in game state.  Alsong as it explains state X becoming state Y the fluff works. 

I agree.  But for me personally, if a game allows weak justifications to explain how state X becomes state Y, it is less enjoyable than a game that is a bit stricter in what it allows.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:00AM, greatfrito wrote:

Max has clearly never seen a person or creature stumble, nor an object list to the side when it becomes unstable.

No, I have never seen a 30 ton dragon stumble.  However, go try something for me.  Go find a motionless 30 ton truck and shoot all the rear left tires.  See if it moves 5 feet or whether it just drops on that side a bit.  A dragon might fall and it's shoulder or whatever might even shift 5 feet in a direction, but the rest of its body won't move.  Just like if you are sitting on the ground and you lean left.  Your shoulder and part of your body are now in another space, but the rest of you hasn't moved from the space you are in.

We are not talking about motionless creatures that are small enough to fall and actually move from where it was standing during the fall

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:01AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:51AM, sjmcc13 wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:42AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 11:08PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Or we can accept that there are ways to move larger creatures than yourself. And realize that the mechanics don't always have to follow what the fluff says.

Fluff cannot be divorced from mechanics.  The mechanic either needs to match the fluff, or vice versa.  You can change either one or both, so long as they end up matching each other. 

They can not be divorced, but the relationship needs to be properly understood. 
Mechanics is the change in the game state state X becomes state Y
Fluff is how the story explains the change in game state.  Alsong as it explains state X becoming state Y the fluff works. 

I agree.  But for me personally, if a game allows weak justifications to explain how state X becomes state Y, it is less enjoyable than a game that is a bit stricter in what it allows.

And the thing that always bugs me in threads like this is:

Why does the whole world have to play the way YOU want to?

If in your games you want to rule that Dragons can't be subjected to the Push mechanic go ahead. As long as you let the players know up front that you will be destroying the Martial classes they can be prepared to play something else.

However your claim that the rules "are wrong" explicitly states that they should change to fit your view.

No thanks. Your way is to narrow for me and my fellow players.

Fluff: The odor of cheese wafts from the wizards lunch ridden mouth.

Mechanic: Target take 50 points of fire damage.

Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other and the power is complete  nonsense.

 

It makes perfect sense. He's a Wizard, therefor magic. So it works just fine. There's nothing strange going on here. 

Actually the rule don't say that.  The rules say martial characters use martial magic.  Even WoTC didn't try to claim fighters can push dragons through sheer unmagical ability. 

So the rules still say Fighters can push Dragons. That just means that

1) Fighters can push Dragons
2) Fighters are not bound by the laws of physics

The only problem here is you not accepting the premises of the game, then.

When the dragon can just lift its head out of reach.  No.

Thereby exposing its soft underbelly, perfectly cutting into the second part of the ability for not moving back; it dies as the fighter cuts it in the heart. Makes perfect sense to me. 

Heh.  That's such a broken power it's not even funny.  Arrange it so that a creature can't move and it's auto-kill in one swing.  

You should read the power. It says quite clearly "the creature moves back if it can". If it can't move, then it can pick that option and not move and be fine.
Of course, the main issue is grognards not willing to follow the regular rules, forcing more complicated and pointless additions to get across the same information. 

I agree.  But for me personally, if a game allows weak justifications to explain how state X becomes state Y, it is less enjoyable than a game that is a bit stricter in what it allows.

Yet "it's magic" is the ultimate justification which allows for everything, unless it relates to Martial, which, as you said, is also magic (and stated by WotC) in which case it doesn't justify anything. Right.

Actually, I think Max illustrates a rather good point - not his arguments (if they can be called that at this point), but by his actions.

Clear-cut mechanical rules - simple mechanical rules - help to insulate against "because I say so"-style-DMs.  At least, when the rules are followed.  Which they won't be.  "Because I say so."  Having less wiggle-room helps to keep the way the game-world works more predictable.  Fewer instances of "You can never move Magic Pony to a square further away from you!  Never ever!  Unless you're magic, then you can do whatever you want."


And, to return to the thread title, a game where the mighty martial hero is able to drive the dragon back with his flurry of blows feels a hell of a lot more like "D&D" to me, than one where the mighty martial hero cannot, in any way, ever, induce the dragon to move a whole 5 feet, for any reason.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:37AM, Zappy wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:11AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 8:36AM, Zappy wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:41AM, Cassan wrote:

Its almost like all the rules lawyers got together and said if you cant translate it into a movement, one of a limited list of conditions or multiple of Weapon damage then you cannot have it.

You've made the claim before to not being out to invalidate martial characters. However right along side of that you want to totally eliminate everything they can do. So let's hear it. Please give me an example of a "creative" power for the martial character of your choice (I'd prefer Fighter though). Any level. Base class, Paragon path or Epic Destiny. Encounter or Daily. If the creators of the game are so uncreative please enlighten us as to how it "should be".

Designing games is hard, its not that any of the existing ones are not creative - its just that as a whole the list is not very extensive as to the different types of effects each power has.

The truth is though there are only so many conditions and effects that can be created before the game gets bogged down. Blinded, Dazed, Deafened, Dominated, Dying, Helpless, Immobilized, Marked, Petrified, Prone, Restrained, Slowed, Stunned, Surprised, Unconcious, and Weakened are all of the possible conditions. Then there's movement Push, Pull and Slide. I can't think of anything else that is not just another word for one of them. And of course there's damage. After all the fuss that was made about Martial characters using the push mechanic now there is call for them to do more things?

I completely agree, thats why I find it hard to come up with a good alternative - I'm not that creative.

Pluisjen came up with a system about 40 pages back that was a point based system for combat.  It seemed a little heavy on bookeeping but its that kind of innovation that is needed to distinguish 5e.  Come up with alternative, tactical, elegant way for the combat and melee classes to play out a battle that is not so heavy on movement and miniature placement.  You can still have the movement and miniature placement, but remove the requirement for it to have a meaningful game and I think you would be well along the way to a distinct and interesting edition - then we can focus on other issues.

Or we could just play Old School Hack, which I only recently discovered, but instantly became one of my favorite RPG systems to-date.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:32AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:09PM, Herrozerro wrote:

sorry dont buy it.  even in real life... not fantasy land we have martial arts which are all about using your opponents strenght against them.  In real life the only way to move someone is not to pick them up or physically push them.

I love the idea of a brawler fighter grappeling a dragon and throwing it around by using it against itself.

I'll be waiting for you to link an article about a man throwing a full grown elephant about by using its strength against it, but I won't be holding my breath.  LOL

I dont really need to because once again we are talking about a fantasy world, we dont have people as strong as gods.  Until then Ill take my inspiration from hercules for martial characters who are as strong as gods.

When I have a character who is as stong as or stronger then a gargantuan dragon I expect... EXPECT him to be doing superhuman feats.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:32AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:32AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 10, 2011 -- 6:09PM, Herrozerro wrote:

sorry dont buy it.  even in real life... not fantasy land we have martial arts which are all about using your opponents strenght against them.  In real life the only way to move someone is not to pick them up or physically push them.

I love the idea of a brawler fighter grappeling a dragon and throwing it around by using it against itself.

I'll be waiting for you to link an article about a man throwing a full grown elephant about by using its strength against it, but I won't be holding my breath.  LOL

I dont really need to because once again we are talking about a fantasy world, we dont have people as strong as gods.  Until then Ill take my inspiration from hercules for martial characters who are as strong as gods.

When I have a character who is as stong as or stronger then a gargantuan dragon I expect... EXPECT him to be doing superhuman feats.

meh i dont really want to play superman or have someone playing superman in my campaign.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:54AM, Cassan wrote:

meh i dont really want to play superman or have someone playing superman in my campaign.

Meh, well i dont like having only archmages be the only ones cool at epic.

If you play 4e you should probably cap strength at 25 or something. 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:58AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:54AM, Cassan wrote:

meh i dont really want to play superman or have someone playing superman in my campaign.

Meh, well i dont like having only archmages be the only ones cool at epic.

If you play 4e you should probably cap strength at 25 or something. 

There's no need.  All you have to do is make it so that size actually matters

Edit:  And incidently, I would not be against limiting magic so that it also had problems based on size to make things even. 

Dec 11, 2011 -- 11:04AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:58AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:54AM, Cassan wrote:

meh i dont really want to play superman or have someone playing superman in my campaign.

Meh, well i dont like having only archmages be the only ones cool at epic.

If you play 4e you should probably cap strength at 25 or something. 

There's no need.  All you have to do is make it so that size actually matters

Edit:  And incidently, I would not be against limiting magic so that it also had problems based on size to make things even. 

well then we'll just have to agree to disagree, I can have my marvel superheroes and you can have your everyman weak fighters.

I’ve removed content from this thread because harassment of others is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 9:11AM, Cassan wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 8:36AM, Zappy wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 7:41AM, Cassan wrote:

Its almost like all the rules lawyers got together and said if you cant translate it into a movement, one of a limited list of conditions or multiple of Weapon damage then you cannot have it.

You've made the claim before to not being out to invalidate martial characters. However right along side of that you want to totally eliminate everything they can do. So let's hear it. Please give me an example of a "creative" power for the martial character of your choice (I'd prefer Fighter though). Any level. Base class, Paragon path or Epic Destiny. Encounter or Daily. If the creators of the game are so uncreative please enlighten us as to how it "should be".

Designing games is hard, its not that any of the existing ones are not creative - its just that as a whole the list is not very extensive as to the different types of effects each power has.

As to the solution thats where a game designer needs to come up with something innovative not me - I would suck at designing games.

Personally the challenge I would give down for the melee fighters is make the powers scale more, make them more unique, and come up with a different way to make the powers effective in combat.  A different way to make the choice strategic.  

This reminds me of something else that bothers me with the melee classes.  In 2e magic users would have spells that they memorized, priests would have spells that they preyed for.  So in either case it made sense why they had a specific list.

Now I have no issue with casters having at will or encounter powers but it seems wierd that melee classes have encounter and daily powers - why force them to 'pick one' that they can only use on that particular day - I mean why can the fighter do a particular melee manoever one day but not another day.  

Why not have a smaller list that are very unique, strategic, with a wide variety of tactical effect that they can pick from dynamically.

Every situation you play through is different. So yes, you may have a specific power, but the way it plays out is going to be different in EVERY fight. I kinda get the feeling you realy haven't played 4e that much or something. I mean maybe you guys have a peculiar (to me) kind of game you play. In the games I run there's very little repetition of situations. The rogue may have Dazing Strike (an encounter power), so pretty often he dazes things, so what? Every monster he's fighting is different, every tactical situation he finds himself in is different too. He knows how to hit people in places they don't want to be hit and he's not above doing it (hint, its a halfling rogue). Its actually quite funny and there's nothing I see about how that works that should be changed.

Now, likewise the same character has Blinding Barrage. He carries around a stack of shuriken and he's gotten real good at flinging them around! Why shouldn't he have an expertise in performing this trick? If he say wanted to use his stack of shuriken to make a set of footholds to climb a sheer rock face. He can do that, just the exact same way he can do it in say AD&D, make a skill/ability check against some DC.

The point is the game is no less flexible than before, and only the most rigid and unimaginitive interpretation stops that from being true. Here's another example that illustrates using a power in an odd way:

The wizard in a group wanted to exterminate some nasty vermin in some vent shafts. She had Stinking Cloud, but clearly the standard employment of that power wouldn't let her fill the shafts with poison because you have to have LoE to every spot and the way movable zones work it just wouldn't be possible by strict interpretation of the mechanics of the power. So, instead the DM (me) said "OK, you can sit down with your Arcana skill for a while and try to figure out a way to expend your Stinking Cloud power to make a cloud that settles down into the shafts" and then I had her run a simple SC to figure it out properly and control the spell. That's it. All fun. No problems. What's the issue here? lol.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 11:28AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 11:14AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 11:04AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:58AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:54AM, Cassan wrote:

meh i dont really want to play superman or have someone playing superman in my campaign.

Meh, well i dont like having only archmages be the only ones cool at epic.

If you play 4e you should probably cap strength at 25 or something. 

There's no need.  All you have to do is make it so that size actually matters

Edit:  And incidently, I would not be against limiting magic so that it also had problems based on size to make things even. 

well then we'll just have to agree to disagree, I can have my Non Magical Strong guys that can do amazing things that you wouldn never allow but are perfectly acceptable within the fantasy model of things and you can have your perfectly strong but non-magical fighters.

Edited for accuracy.  And I have no problem agreeing to disagree

Edited for further Accuracy

Dec 11, 2011 -- 11:04AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:58AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 10:54AM, Cassan wrote:

meh i dont really want to play superman or have someone playing superman in my campaign.

Meh, well i dont like having only archmages be the only ones cool at epic.

If you play 4e you should probably cap strength at 25 or something. 

There's no need.  All you have to do is make it so that size actually matters

Edit:  And incidently, I would not be against limiting magic so that it also had problems based on size to make things even. 

Size does matter really. A level 5 fighter will maybe fight a 320 lb large wyrmling or young dragon. He's basically an ordinary sort of guy, really strong (maybe as high as 21 STR, probably 18 or 19) with a lot of fighting skill, but he's still roughly in your range of 'unlikely but not completely out of this world' guy. He'll NEVER see a huge ancient dragon that weighs 5 tons, and if he DID try to melee one and push it around he'd have zip chance of it succeeding. If he got REAL lucky he might Tide of Iron the thing on a 20, but of course he's unlikely to even survive the resulting reaction attack let alone get a second shot at it.

So, yes, you could add a mass of complex rules like 3.5 had for all these sorts of situations, but since they basically never come up in any meaningful fashion in the game why bother? In the 1 in 10,000 games where it DOES come up the DM can just laugh and say "nice try fella!" because it is effectively meaningless. In point of fact in 4e you wouldn't even run such a scenario as a fight, so the mechanics are really truly meaningless there.

I think this is one of the points where people really get hung up. 4e's combat mechanics are intended to work well in the base cases where the standard assumptions apply. They aren't designed to carry you through every possible obscure situation that almost never comes up. For that you have skills and ability checks and the SC framework, or just plain RP and exposition.

Clearly people that are having trouble with a narrative and game centered system are trying to shoehorn it into their entirely simulationist world view. You expect there to be a set of iron clad 'rules of physics' that try to handle every possible juxtaposition of this and that where if you follow rules and roll dice and whatever you'll just manufacture a narrative. That simply isn't the way 4e is designed to work. Despite its heft as a system it is at heart a narratively focused system as far as plot and RP go, more like some light-weight system. It doesn't expect you to try to use the detailed combat rules for everything under the sun, only for situations where there is meaningful combat that can be handled in a gamist fashion. This is also one reason why there are both powers and rituals. One is intended to provide the hard and fast balanced resolutions of character actions in a tactical fight, a situation where it is expected that the encounter elements are level appropriate and thus things can be narrated in a sensible fashion (and even then the DM is utterly free to simply change game parameters for narrative reasons, a point none of you ever addressed).

When you try to shoehorn the gamist combat system into dealing with a purely narrative type situation where the huge ancient red dragon is menacing the level 5 fighter you simply won't get useful results. Don't do that. The game even says "don't do that" and provides other more narratively based resolution systems, things like rituals that supply plot magic, etc.

It is understandable that the people who mostly transitioned from 3.x OFTEN have this problem. It is notable that the majority of people IME that never played 3.x are perfectly happy with 4e (or at least any issues they have are of a different sort). Of course this isn't universally true, Kalnaur for instance IIRC has said he never played AD&D and did play 3.5 and likes 4e. Some people more easily pick up that looser and less rules-centered style of play.

I’ve removed content from this thread because harassment and trolling/baiting are violations of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.

Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed by the Community leads to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.