Community

Mar 18, 2012 -- 12:20AM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mar 18, 2012 -- 12:08AM, Kalnaur wrote:

By the way, this is also why I have no problem with a push pull or slide working on, for example, a dragon.  The character might not actually be pushing the dragon; instead the character is mechanically making the target move a number of squares away, and then the player and the DM are charged with explaining how that makes sense, instead of it having to make sense that a dragon can be pushed in the first place since the word push, again, is being used as a game mechanics term.  If it doesn't fit, toss the word, use the mechanics.

Exactly, and for me it's toss the mechanics, keep the word.

I really do think we can both be served by DDN; I don't think it's an impossible feat.  Also, I know there's more you like out of the 4e DMG (the same could be said for me), I was just being simple for the sake of brevity.  I'm glad you think my analysis is fairly accurate.

I'm glad you don't think my way is badwrongfun. 

I've gotten that a little too much around here.

Mar 18, 2012 -- 12:29AM, Kalnaur wrote:

I'm glad you don't think my way is badwrongfun. 

I've gotten that a little too much around here.

I don't and never have.  I think one of my earlier (way earlier) statements that the way you play D&D is the same way I play White Wolf games is also still accurate.

@FirstTurnKill: this is a good post. I'll try to give my share of thoughts on the matters you propose.

Mar 17, 2012 -- 12:09PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Problems with the execution of AEDU as a system:
1. Only system used for all classes.  This makes all the classes function the same to me, worse so, it made all monsters function the same, as well.
2. Generally strict adherence to a particular formula of powers (every class picked the exact same type of ability at each level).
3. No shared lists of powers, for much of what you've said.  Also, this made it frustratingly time consuming to build new classes for the game.

1 & 2) This, I consider a feature. First, it is not so different from 3.5 in a way, because all 3.5 abilities are either at-wills, encounters, dailies or static bonuses (same as now). Second, it is much easier to balance. I am not thoroughly opposed to different power systems for every class, but I believe you are likely trading balance for the sake of... variety, sort of, but not a variety I consider worth the trouble. It's apparent variety, not substantial variety. I understand it is important to some people and we have confirmation that D&D Next will strive for this. I can only hope the system stays balanced enough to be playable.

3) Agreed. It could have been handled way better. "Restructuring Powers" from True Mallowman in my signature is a good idea that solves this point brilliantly in my opinion.

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

1) This is something I've seen around many times. It depends hugely on the way you play. This video is a good example of what I mean: you describe your action, not shout the name of your power. When a player uses Tide of Iron at my table, he just says something along the lines of "I charge the kobold and try to bash my shield on his head, pushing through their defense line". A monk using Five Storms may say "I sweep my leg around hitting all my foes" just as well as "I punch the guy in fron of me, and as the other two try to strike me with their lances I dodge, break the elbow of the left one, grab his weapon and use it to strike the other". It's the same power, and it is an Implement attack vs Reflexes that hits all adjacent enemies.
Point is, 4E was thought to be played this way. It's not for everyone, maybe, but it is what the developers had in mind when planning it. I believe, at least.
2) Well, this is a strange complaint. Why can't a 3.5 ranger shoot two arrows at level 5? 'Cause he hasn't got the right feat, nor the right bab. It's training that gives you an at-will instead of another... just like training opens up different martial options in all other editions. Multiple attacks are something that to my understanding has always been around...
3) I think this is a good thing. I hate having burnt out wizards, and that kind of implementation gives the temptation of giving wizards more powerful abilities "because they can be spent!", which is IME crappy design. Designing a system that supposedly balances great rewards with great flaws never works out as intended, and is exceptionally prone to abuses. Except that when you are in an RPG it's not really an abuse: you character is a genius, why should he do anything but what is best for the current situation?

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

1) Well, I think Encounters could have been implemented better. They should be tactical spices and options, not flat out better powers. That, however, doesn't answer your problem. Of course, by seeing both encounters and daily powers as narrative you get rid of the whole issue altogether. If you are not ready to use narrative mechanics, then you can always justify it in a few different ways, but I agree they are "gamist" if you see them as actual sword techniques. See the video above as a reference to what I think about "powers being a certain sword technique / spell" (i.e. they are not, they are the mechanical representation, useful in conflict resolution, of what your character does; the two are not the same thing).

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

Those are my issues with AEDU as implemented.

I should point out I prefer other solutions to daily powers. I also believe that if anyone has daily powers, everybody should. This is something that has been discussed to death in other threads, however, and I'll leave it at that.

Mormegil, thanks for the discussion!  Since I'm awake too late, as always, I'll give back, but I don't know if I'll be awake enough to make a second response.  I'd like to note that I may refer to the past several posts of conversation between Kalnuar and me, as it provides fairly clear insight into a lot of this.  Also, please forgive any spelling/grammar errors at this late hour

Mar 18, 2012 -- 1:23AM, TheMormegil wrote:

1 & 2) This, I consider a feature.

I agree, I think it is a feature of 4e, but I personally was disappointed by it.  It was an unwelcome system shock going from 3e to 4e.  I do hope the balance you seek is also achievable in 5e, because I really would like for us all to be playing Dungeons and Dragons.

Mar 18, 2012 -- 1:23AM, TheMormegil wrote:

3) Agreed. It could have been handled way better. "Restructuring Powers" from True Mallowman in my signature is a good idea that solves this point brilliantly in my opinion.

I think this is a fairly consistent attitude.  Had I been DMing a group that didn't consist completely of new players to the tabletop RPG genre, I would have houseruled it myself before building 8 brand new classes.  But I didn't for their sake.

Mar 18, 2012 -- 1:23AM, TheMormegil wrote:

1) This is something I've seen around many times. It depends hugely on the way you play. This video is a good example of what I mean: you describe your action, not shout the name of your power. When a player uses Tide of Iron at my table, he just says something along the lines of "I charge the kobold and try to bash my shield on his head, pushing through their defense line". A monk using Five Storms may say "I sweep my leg around hitting all my foes" just as well as "I punch the guy in fron of me, and as the other two try to strike me with their lances I dodge, break the elbow of the left one, grab his weapon and use it to strike the other". It's the same power, and it is an Implement attack vs Reflexes that hits all adjacent enemies.
Point is, 4E was thought to be played this way. It's not for everyone, maybe, but it is what the developers had in mind when planning it. I believe, at least.

This is the first point that I'll refer back to the discussion over the past couple pages.  If this was the desired goal for 4e play, why even name the abilities or present flavor?  If the ability has the "Martial, Weapon" keywords, and it's a Melee ability, just leave it at that.  Don't even give me a name and flavor text for it.  OK, so don't actually do that, because I probably won't play the game.  But what I'm getting at is, I see the mechanics presented as descriptions for the flavor text given.  The mechanics, to me, represent the best way the developers felt that specific flavor would be emulated systemically.  So, to me, that language used is key.  Fireball, in 3e, is a glowing, pea-sized bead that streaks from the casters finger in the proscribed direction and blossoms into a ball of fire at the specified range (unless it hits something).  Fireball is not, to me, a spell that does level-d6 damage in a 20ft. radius sphere.  The mechanics are just secondary emulations of the results of that description.  That's a bit extreme, as I do have some flavor lenience, but it's nowhere near your level -- just as I'd expect your mechanical lenience is nowhere near mine.

Think if I was system shocked by the structure of the classes, just what my reaction to the above change of focus was.  I'll tell you that I never *completely* realized and understood 4e's approach until tonight.

Mar 18, 2012 -- 1:23AM, TheMormegil wrote:

2) Well, this is a strange complaint. Why can't a 3.5 ranger shoot two arrows at level 5? 'Cause he hasn't got the right feat, nor the right bab. It's training that gives you an at-will instead of another... just like training opens up different martial options in all other editions. Multiple attacks are something that to my understanding has always been around...

OK, the *ranged* double strike thing was a bad example, but what about two weapon melee fighting?  A character without ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting feats in 3e can still actually attempt to make two attacks, they are just very bad at it (terrible) without feats.  They don't need to get a power to do it.

I think I said it best when talking about Trip attempts.  In 4e, if you want to specialize in knocking characters prone, you probably wind up with a rather large number of unique powers to do so.  In 3e, if you want to specialize in knocking characters prone, you probably get bonuses to Trip; which is something that anyone can attempt to do, at any time, just not as good as you.

3) I think this is a good thing. I hate having burnt out wizards, and that kind of implementation gives the temptation of giving wizards more powerful abilities "because they can be spent!", which is IME crappy design. Designing a system that supposedly balances great rewards with great flaws never works out as intended, and is exceptionally prone to abuses. Except that when you are in an RPG it's not really an abuse: you character is a genius, why should he do anything but what is best for the current situation?

With what already sounds like options for at-will-like effects for casters, and different class subsystems, I honestly do hope we both get the wizard we like to play (note, my desire isn't for overpoweredness; I want a resource that needs to be carefully managed lest I be just some Commoner shmuck).

Mar 18, 2012 -- 1:23AM, TheMormegil wrote:

1) Well, I think Encounters could have been implemented better. They should be tactical spices and options, not flat out better powers. That, however, doesn't answer your problem. Of course, by seeing both encounters and daily powers as narrative you get rid of the whole issue altogether. If you are not ready to use narrative mechanics, then you can always justify it in a few different ways, but I agree they are "gamist" if you see them as actual sword techniques. See the video above as a reference to what I think about "powers being a certain sword technique / spell" (i.e. they are not, they are the mechanical representation, useful in conflict resolution, of what your character does; the two are not the same thing).

I'll refer here to my above response about powers, flavor, and mechanics.

Mar 18, 2012 -- 2:16AM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mar 18, 2012 -- 1:23AM, TheMormegil wrote:

1) This is something I've seen around many times. It depends hugely on the way you play. This video is a good example of what I mean: you describe your action, not shout the name of your power. When a player uses Tide of Iron at my table, he just says something along the lines of "I charge the kobold and try to bash my shield on his head, pushing through their defense line". A monk using Five Storms may say "I sweep my leg around hitting all my foes" just as well as "I punch the guy in fron of me, and as the other two try to strike me with their lances I dodge, break the elbow of the left one, grab his weapon and use it to strike the other". It's the same power, and it is an Implement attack vs Reflexes that hits all adjacent enemies.
Point is, 4E was thought to be played this way. It's not for everyone, maybe, but it is what the developers had in mind when planning it. I believe, at least.

This is the first point that I'll refer back to the discussion over the past couple pages.  If this was the desired goal for 4e play, why even name the abilities or present flavor?  If the ability has the "Martial, Weapon" keywords, and it's a Melee ability, just leave it at that.  Don't even give me a name and flavor text for it.  OK, so don't actually do that, because I probably won't play the game.  But what I'm getting at is, I see the mechanics presented as descriptions for the flavor text given.  The mechanics, to me, represent the best way the developers felt that specific flavor would be emulated systemically.  So, to me, that language used is key.  Fireball, in 3e, is a glowing, pea-sized bead that streaks from the casters finger in the proscribed direction and blossoms into a ball of fire at the specified range (unless it hits something).  Fireball is not, to me, a spell that does level-d6 damage in a 20ft. radius sphere.  The mechanics are just secondary emulations of the results of that description.  That's a bit extreme, as I do have some flavor lenience, but it's nowhere near your level -- just as I'd expect your mechanical lenience is nowhere near mine.

Think if I was system shocked by the structure of the classes, just what my reaction to the above change of focus was.  I'll tell you that I never *completely* realized and understood 4e's approach until tonight.

I will mention that, being completely new to tabletop D&D with 4th, I assumed that how Mormegil mentioned it was how I assumed the game worked from day one.  I have often posited that the approach was so different that trying to understand it from the lens of the old editions might be what caused people to disconnect and not understand or even enjoy the method.

I will also say that I did not really understand people's (to me) insane obsession with flavour influencing mechanics until tonight, because video games kinda do it the other way around, and thus that's my baseline.  I still don't like it, or think it makes any sense, but I think I understand where it came from at least, if your description of Fireball is anything to extrapolate from.

Because to me, Fireball is something that does fire damage of a certain amount in a certain radius.  The fact that it looks like an explosion of fire, or some churning flame, or whatever, really never matters as much to me as what it does "in game" as it were.

When I talk about games I am using the following:

game, noun,
1.an amusement or pastime: children's games.
3.a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

play the game, informal

Mar 18, 2012 -- 2:16AM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mormegil, thanks for the discussion!  Since I'm awake too late, as always, I'll give back, but I don't know if I'll be awake enough to make a second response.  I'd like to note that I may refer to the past several posts of conversation between Kalnuar and me, as it provides fairly clear insight into a lot of this.  Also, please forgive any spelling/grammar errors at this late hour

You're welcome and don't worry, I'm used to having discussions interrupted because I live in a completely different timezone.

Mar 18, 2012 -- 1:23AM, TheMormegil wrote:

1) This is something I've seen around many times. It depends hugely on the way you play. This video is a good example of what I mean: you describe your action, not shout the name of your power. When a player uses Tide of Iron at my table, he just says something along the lines of "I charge the kobold and try to bash my shield on his head, pushing through their defense line". A monk using Five Storms may say "I sweep my leg around hitting all my foes" just as well as "I punch the guy in fron of me, and as the other two try to strike me with their lances I dodge, break the elbow of the left one, grab his weapon and use it to strike the other". It's the same power, and it is an Implement attack vs Reflexes that hits all adjacent enemies.
Point is, 4E was thought to be played this way. It's not for everyone, maybe, but it is what the developers had in mind when planning it. I believe, at least.

This is the first point that I'll refer back to the discussion over the past couple pages.  If this was the desired goal for 4e play, why even name the abilities or present flavor?  If the ability has the "Martial, Weapon" keywords, and it's a Melee ability, just leave it at that.  Don't even give me a name and flavor text for it.  OK, so don't actually do that, because I probably won't play the game.  But what I'm getting at is, I see the mechanics presented as descriptions for the flavor text given.  The mechanics, to me, represent the best way the developers felt that specific flavor would be emulated systemically.  So, to me, that language used is key.  Fireball, in 3e, is a glowing, pea-sized bead that streaks from the casters finger in the proscribed direction and blossoms into a ball of fire at the specified range (unless it hits something).  Fireball is not, to me, a spell that does level-d6 damage in a 20ft. radius sphere.  The mechanics are just secondary emulations of the results of that description.  That's a bit extreme, as I do have some flavor lenience, but it's nowhere near your level -- just as I'd expect your mechanical lenience is nowhere near mine.

Yeah, this has been discussed to death in the "Keep Reflavoring Alive!" thread. The text I bolded would be totally ok for me, as I don't bother with flavor text in ANY case. I just don't want the rules to dictate what I play and how, the flavor is mine to decide.
The best compromise I have envisioned is to have the main book your way, with flavor and mechanic bound together, and a sidebar / paragraph / chapter for each class / spell / ability that gives the barebone mechanics for it. Even just bolding the relevant parts, I don't know. For instance:

Fireball
*Insert the obvious table for keywords, range, save, stuff, like in 3.5*
*Insert 3.5 description of the spell*
Recap: Area burst 20', 5d6 fire damage, half on a miss.

Web
*Insert the obvious table for keywords, range, save, stuff, like in 3.5*
*Insert 3.5 description of the spell*
Recap: area burst 10', creates a zone until the end of the encounter. The creatures in the zone are subject to an attack each round and immobilized on a hit. The zone is difficult terrain. Creatures can attempt a Strength check to break free as a move action, DC is 15+Int modifier.

Sidebar: Reflavoring a Paladin
Bla bla bla the paladin's divine grace can be reflavored to a magical shield or exceptional training bla bla bla the paladin's smite needs to be an ability keyed to a broad category of enemies, but with some restrictions, talk with your DM to change it, some examples are bla bla bla...

That's sort of a compromise. It has problems.

OK, the *ranged* double strike thing was a bad example, but what about two weapon melee fighting?  A character without ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting feats in 3e can still actually attempt to make two attacks, they are just very bad at it (terrible) without feats.  They don't need to get a power to do it.

I think I said it best when talking about Trip attempts.  In 4e, if you want to specialize in knocking characters prone, you probably wind up with a rather large number of unique powers to do so.  In 3e, if you want to specialize in knocking characters prone, you probably get bonuses to Trip; which is something that anyone can attempt to do, at any time, just not as good as you.

Well, I agree that combat manoeuvres should be usable by anyone (trip, disarm, push, stuff like that). I don't particularly miss them but I would like a decent implementation (3.5's implementation was incredibly awful). Most of that stuff is just described in a different way, but I can understand the need for the tactical option.
The two attacks is a better example in my opinion: if you are a fighter wielding two weapons, you can attack with both. You use a power that has one attack roll and deals X damages, and describe yourself hitting the enemy with both weapons. Just to make clearer my point, the best implementation I have seen for two weapon fighting is Legend's one: you have either a light weapon (d6 damage, describe it any way you want it), a one handed weapon (d8 damage, can wield a shield, can be a longsword or an axe or anything), a two handed weapon (including two weapons; it deals 2d6 damage, you make one attack roll and describe it as attacking with two weapons. Mechanically the same as attacking with a greatsword barring specific TWF / greatsword feats or options).

Mar 17, 2012 -- 8:36AM, ReaperTatt wrote:

You know what I think is cool? The concept of AEDU applied to magical items. I would endorse that model going forward. Also, monsters in 4e are outstanding- I would just like to see more narrative explanation of powers

I definitely agree with both those statements. I never really like counting charges on wands and prefer they use daily/encounter powers instead. I also like how the 4e wands have passive properties much like magic weapons have passive properties. Likewise I think having all monsters have unique abilities in 4e was a big step forward and I'll be surprised if they don't continue doing something similar with monsters in 5e.

Mar 17, 2012 -- 4:21PM, upho wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 1:52PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals.

Exactly. 

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

Easy, the ooze is acting instinctively to decide who it attacks and the fighter marking the ooze is skilled at knowing how to aggressively attack a target in order to draw its attention away from other people. If anything the fact that the ooze is acting in a purely instinctual manner would make it EASIER to taunt away from other people, not harder.

Mar 18, 2012 -- 7:28AM, Bodyknock wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 4:21PM, upho wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 1:52PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals.

Exactly. 

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

Easy, the ooze is acting instinctively to decide who it attacks and the fighter marking the ooze is skilled at knowing how to aggressively attack a target in order to draw its attention away from other people. If anything the fact that the ooze is acting in a purely instinctual manner would make it EASIER to taunt away from other people, not harder.

Or, to avoid the whole problem, a DM could realize that the pudding is ALREADY prone, unless it is on a wall or on a ceiling!
Another interesting thread, Emerikol!

-DS

Mar 18, 2012 -- 12:20AM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mar 18, 2012 -- 12:08AM, Kalnaur wrote:

By the way, this is also why I have no problem with a push pull or slide working on, for example, a dragon.  The character might not actually be pushing the dragon; instead the character is mechanically making the target move a number of squares away, and then the player and the DM are charged with explaining how that makes sense, instead of it having to make sense that a dragon can be pushed in the first place since the word push, again, is being used as a game mechanics term.  If it doesn't fit, toss the word, use the mechanics.

Exactly, and for me it's toss the mechanics, keep the word.

I really do think we can both be served by DDN; I don't think it's an impossible feat.  Also, I know there's more you like out of the 4e DMG (the same could be said for me), I was just being simple for the sake of brevity.  I'm glad you think my analysis is fairly accurate.

I agree with First and hadn't even considered people play like that Kalnaur. If I, as a DM, figured a dragon was too big to be pushed, he was simply immune to all that, just like Iron Golems (too heavy). I am probably harder on my players than many.....if it looks like your power can't work, then i don't let it work.....I put the onus on the players to come up with a way in which it makes sense that it can work-and in many cases i gran tthem the benefit of the doubt (i try to let the players come up with solutions, and failing at that  then let them make INT checks so i can drop a vague hint). In fact, my players would likely guffaw at the whole experience if i pushed it through for sake of implementing the power-mechanics by stretching the imagination too far, and they would label me as giving them a free ride. Each to their own i guess.

AEDU for a Simulationist (me):
Need an Action economy with costs balanced against the Character's total pool of resources.  This is completely generic for ALL classes!  It includes everything from Action Points to Healing Surges to Vancian Spells to Martial Maneuvers to Basic Attacks to "whatever" and is laid out and explained in the DM's Guide (but NOT in the PH).  In the Players Handbook, every class is presented from a subjective perspective, emphasizing flavor-based choices as the main guide for a player to build his or her character.  I would prefer to see the default as: Martial classes have more At-Will choices available and less or more open-ended "Daily" actions; Spellcasting classes have more "Daily" choices available (that are explicitly spelled out and delimited) with less At-Will choices.  Note that this is only the default and no one would be "locked in" to this system.  I put "Daily" in quotes because I really believe it should apply only to very specific circumstances and I definitely would not describe a (literal) Vancian style as "daily" (Gygaxian spells ARE daily, though).
Now, all that being said, the AEDU system would be a perfectly viable OPTION available to the DM!

-DS

I really like playin the hard, recently - his spell list is evocative, interesting, and excitingly different from the cleric and wizard.   For that reason, I'm not sure 100% shared spell lists are a good idea. 

I'm glad that he distinction between mechanics and flavor is being handled here so thoughtfully.  But, for those who are worried about tripping a dragon - do you also worry about the pea sized projectile being thrown off course, or accidentally exploded by contacting rain, or being charged by the lightning strike and therefore polarized to miss its target?  If we treat web to the same level of realism (well it takes 1d8 rounds of sticking to attach to that wall because the weather is humid) as a prone attack, I'm cool.

I think AEDU is pretty good actually. More dalies need to be reliable or even allow spending an action point to re-roll a miss because you only get 1 shot with them vs monsters who are generally 'fresh' each encounter.

If we move back to pre-4E then it's BAB or a vancian spell. Which sucks 

Mar 18, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Facet wrote:

Mar 18, 2012 -- 12:20AM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mar 18, 2012 -- 12:08AM, Kalnaur wrote:

By the way, this is also why I have no problem with a push pull or slide working on, for example, a dragon.  The character might not actually be pushing the dragon; instead the character is mechanically making the target move a number of squares away, and then the player and the DM are charged with explaining how that makes sense, instead of it having to make sense that a dragon can be pushed in the first place since the word push, again, is being used as a game mechanics term.  If it doesn't fit, toss the word, use the mechanics.

Exactly, and for me it's toss the mechanics, keep the word.

I really do think we can both be served by DDN; I don't think it's an impossible feat.  Also, I know there's more you like out of the 4e DMG (the same could be said for me), I was just being simple for the sake of brevity.  I'm glad you think my analysis is fairly accurate.

I agree with First and hadn't even considered people play like that Kalnaur. If I, as a DM, figured a dragon was too big to be pushed, he was simply immune to all that, just like Iron Golems (too heavy). I am probably harder on my players than many.....if it looks like your power can't work, then i don't let it work.....I put the onus on the players to come up with a way in which it makes sense that it can work-and in many cases i gran tthem the benefit of the doubt (i try to let the players come up with solutions, and failing at that  then let them make INT checks so i can drop a vague hint). In fact, my players would likely guffaw at the whole experience if i pushed it through for sake of implementing the power-mechanics by stretching the imagination too far, and they would label me as giving them a free ride. Each to their own i guess.

I know it's not a ubiquitous way to play, but it is my way.  If I felt the need to change the style for the sake of a group, I know I could, but my group seems to be kosher with how I do it. 

I do find it heartening though that apparently my presence informs people that not everyone plays games like them.  I'm glad to widen the views of others.

After listening to all these great posts, and a few duds, I come to the conclusion that I like reflavoring but I like it ahead of time.   I want the mechanics to reflect reality but I don't mind if the DM/player reflavors something ahead of time.  To me that means the spell really does work differently.  I do want prone to mean prone.  I am though ok with making some power descriptions a bit more generalized and thus more applicable.

So if someone took a class and reflavored it entirely so that it was something new that would be creative and if approved by the DM fine with me.  That class though would now exist in my world as something real and the descriptions of the powers would be something real.  

Now it's also fine to do what I call minor reflavoring.  Just stating essentially the same concept but differently.  But in those cases, the mechanics still support what you can and cannot do as it relates to the flavor.

This thread has opened my eyes better so that I understand the whole reflavoring debate.  I imagine theMormegil that when you say reflavoring you are meaning "on the fly".   Meaning the mechanics always trumph the flavor and you change the flavor to reflect the mechanical result.   For me, I don't like.  So I must resign from the reflavoring camp if that is what it really is.   I didn't understand before.  It probably is a simulationist / narrativist debate all over again.





 

It is a narrativist-simulationist/gamist debate rather.

Mar 17, 2012 -- 11:50PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

If you want to specialize in knocking people prone, you'll probably wind up with a litany of powers that knock people/things prone that no one else can use but you, but you probably won't get significantly better at making basic Trip attacks (in comparison to your peers).

I think I know what you're getting at here, but this is incorrect. Actually, you're much more likely to end up with no powers that knock people/things prone, since you'll be able to do that with every single weapon attack anyway. In 4e, the way to get good at making Trip attacks is to wield a certain weapon (polearm or flail group) and then load up on certain feats, quite similar to previous editions. So yes, you'll be significantly better at making basic Trip attacks (in comparison to your peers).

Mar 17, 2012 -- 11:50PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 8:48PM, upho wrote:

So, in short I believe:

1. A system with non-distinctive uniform AEDU powers (4e PHB 1) should have plenty of crossover and more mechanical weight put into class features.
2. Distinct, class specific AEDU powers (4e "Power" books etc) should have less crossover and don't need nearly as much class features, as those are, to a large degree, already in the powers.

I would definitely prefer the second, as it's significantly better at separating classes and giving each a distinctive mechanical feel (a fighter/cleric would be significantly different than a paladin which I believe is a class in its own right, not a "ready-made mix" with some Lay-on Hands thrown in). In addition, the second alternative can provide greater freedom within each class - if I don't want to play the charismatic goody-two-shoes pally I can choose powers that fits, for example, a grim hard-hitting pally of Storm, Strength and Battle (Kord) better.

Can I ask for more clarification on this from your perspective?  As an example, let's say that under system 1 there is a shared pot of 60 powers for 5 different classes, with a bit of design time spent on the mechanical class features....or there are 5 classes each with 20 unshared powers with much less design time spent on mechanical class features.  How does the second example help you build multiple different Paladin builds better than the first?  I don't mean for that to be some kind of trick or trap question.  Those are the examples that I thought of when reading your 2 systems, but when I got to your conclusion I was confused.

I see that I wasn't very clear here, sorry. The difference isn't that the second system allows a larger number of different pally builds, it's that it allows a larger number of different "distinctively pally-ish" pally builds. The first system will create a (larger) number of different pally builds, but they'll have more in common with builds of other classes since they'll share many powers. 

Mar 17, 2012 -- 11:50PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 9:35PM, upho wrote:

To use an example previously used in this forum, I would have no problems with demonologist PC's fireball spell being described as a gate opening to the abyss and a fire-breathing demon poking it's head out to drown an area in fire. It would still use the same mechanics as the traditional fireball spell, naturally. Restricting the players to the flavors described in the books kills too much creativity and many cool narrative concepts, IMO. Besides, reflavoring has been supported in every edition, it was just made easier in 4e. In this case, the difference might be that I don't necessarily believe the ability to knock an orc prone have to be very different from unsettling an ooze, in terms of mechanics as well as flavor.

If I let my players reflavor Fireball to be like that, I would come back to the next session and they would have concocted an elaborate scheme to bait and trap the demon that poked its head of such an Abyssal portal.  And while I don't mind killing them all, I'd at least rather make it more difficult for them to do so

I'd say that elaborate scheme is perfect for turning into an interesting adventure, for example ending up with the party (if they're successful) being able to make an expensive ritual to trap the demon and use it for something else (with the interesting side effect of the party making a powerful enemy that may come back to bite their butts at some later point). Perfect!

Mar 17, 2012 -- 11:50PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Also, I'd like to point out that reflavoring has been supported in every edition, and so has remechanicking.  It's really a matter of which one of the two concepts the edition feels most open to, and which one you prefer to do as a player (more on that in response to Kalnuar's post).

Yeah, I believe you're right. I just think that reflavoring is much less likely to ruin the game, and IME it still needs to be done in every game (to some extent) since every group each have their own unique tastes.

Mar 17, 2012 -- 11:50PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 9:35PM, upho wrote:

Regarding your examples, I believe the solution is simply adding suitable immunities in the monster's descriptions. And a gaze attack that works on oozes isn't just reflavored, it has different mechanics than the original attack.

Does it?  If you reflavor a "prone" attack to "unsettle" an ooze, the mechanics of the attack are the same because it causes the same effects...how is reflavoring a "gaze" attack to a highly focused "stare" at the ooze mechanically different if it causes the same effect?  Anyway, it was an example of a slippery slope, one that we both obviously agree goes to far.  I was using it to be that example of a reflavored effect that you wouldn't be comfortable with, either.

I understand what you're getting at, I think this is simply a matter of opinion. And I certainly wouldn't mind seeing that oozes were immune to being knocked prone in 5e. But the difference I was getting at is that "prone" isn't just a narrative description, it's also a label of a package of mechanics that (strictly speaking) doesn't have to be related to the narrative (normal) meaning of the word "prone". Thus, an ooze that has been the victim of the mechanical package "prone" would probably be described as "unsettled" in my narrative. There's no change of the mechanics here, the only thing that changes are the descriptions. I assumed your "gaze" attack example referred to the mechanical package "gaze attack", not the narrative description (and changing that mechanical package is changing the mechanics, regardless of how the attack is described in the narrative).

@FirstTurnKill and Emerikol: Thank you both for an interesting and insightful discussion free of edition flaming!

Mar 17, 2012 -- 11:24AM, Facet wrote:

AEDU

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

Now in the earlier editions the fighter could do neither of those....but had a whole backup of potential weapon prof's and NW prof's to bolster his action. The fighter could use tumbling and his normal attack to come up with a trick (or we could just say "at will type effect") but the range of that was left to his imagination....very open ended simply in the layout of how it was represented. Now every trick he attempted to use had a chance of failure (a failed tumbling check) so there was a sense of risk with much of everything you did, the more fantastic....the more the risk, but with a chance of gain in turning the tides of battle.

Restated:

Now in the earlier editions the fighter had only one canned maneuver he could do fairly reliably instead of four... but had a whole golf-bag full of weapons to use that one canned maneuver with, and could also improvise and put together a proposal which, IF the DM consented, would let him roll a die (possibly more than one) to see if he succeeded in carrying out some sort of stunt to get to the place where he wanted to be to do his one canned maneuver - which, as always, involved a to-hit roll.

In other words, all this fanciness served to increase the number of ways in which the fighter could fail.

E-encounter. Encounter powers weren't so much an issue except that some players questioned their execution. "Come and get it" If you were flying 10' off the ground and flew over a group and executed the power.....how did they get sucked up into the air....

Possibly in the updraft created by ripping sections of the rules out and throwing them away.

you get an attack on each hovering guy, then they fall on their own accord so you get another attack for them retreating from your square then they fall prone upon hitting the ground for even more damage.

1) Non-flying creatures can't be Pulled (or Pushed or Slid) upward into the air.
2) Falling doesn't provoke opportunity attacks (or Combat Challenge's immediate-interrupt attack).
3) Even if it did, you'd be doing this on your turn and you don't get to do an OA (or any sort of Immediate action) on your turn.

You're similarly off-base in all the other stuff, plus the ongoing demand that non-spellcasters be realistic in a fantasy game...

Mar 17, 2012 -- 12:09PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Problems with the execution of AEDU as a system:
1. Only system used for all classes.  This makes all the classes function the same to me, worse so, it made all monsters function the same, as well.

I've never understood how the layout of the character sheet makes classes that do entirely different things seem the same. The layout is really more important than the content?

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:00AM, warrl wrote:

I've never understood how the layout of the character sheet makes classes that do entirely different things seem the same. The layout is really more important than the content?

It's not just the layout.

You don't really have classes that are 100% combat and another one that is 80% combat/20% social etc...

All classes are consistent and balanced against one another in all situations with AEDU.

What if you want an extra "out of combat" utility power at level 3 instead of an encounter power? You can't. With a rigid class system like AEDU, you can't add fun colorful class features as often. And what if you don't want your level 5 daily spell to get a better level 7 encounter power? You can't either. AEDU is too rigid to deal with any of these situations and yet, these are the kinds of things that make a class unique.

And finally, most encounter/daily powers are expressed as "deal X damage and apply Y condition". Of course they play differently, but these differences are not as fundamental as what you can get with utility powers. Dimension Door and Chamelon, now you're talking about class differences. But you don't have that many utility powers.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:37AM, Gnarl wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:00AM, warrl wrote:

I've never understood how the layout of the character sheet makes classes that do entirely different things seem the same. The layout is really more important than the content?

It's not just the layout.

You don't really have classes that are 100% combat and another one that is 80% combat/20% social etc...

All classes are consistent and balanced against one another in all situations with AEDU.

Dang, we wish that was true. We like having all characters be of some legitimate use in nearly-all situations.

What if you want an extra "out of combat" utility power at level 3 instead of an encounter power? You can't. With a rigid class system like AEDU, you can't add fun colorful class features as often. And what if you don't want your level 5 daily spell to get a better level 7 encounter power? You can't either. AEDU is too rigid to deal with any of these situations and yet, these are the kinds of things that make a class unique.

No they aren't. They might help make a class unique if one class were FORCED, exactly as rigidly as 4E is, to use a DIFFERENT distribution.

If you could CHOOSE to take a level-2 utility power instead of a level 3 encounter power, that would make your character different - not your class. But there's no shortage of ways to make characters unique. The flexibility you ask for might be a good idea for any number of reasons (or might not), but it isn't needed for that specific purpose.

And finally, most encounter/daily powers are expressed as "deal X damage and apply Y condition".

Yeah, that's what spellcaster powers did in AD&D and 3E, too. For that matter, that's what fighters did too, except they got comparatively not much damage and really lame conditions. What's the problem?

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:49AM, warrl wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:37AM, Gnarl wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:00AM, warrl wrote:

I've never understood how the layout of the character sheet makes classes that do entirely different things seem the same. The layout is really more important than the content?

It's not just the layout.

You don't really have classes that are 100% combat and another one that is 80% combat/20% social etc...

All classes are consistent and balanced against one another in all situations with AEDU.

Dang, we wish that was true. We like having all characters be of some legitimate use in nearly-all situations.

What if you want an extra "out of combat" utility power at level 3 instead of an encounter power? You can't. With a rigid class system like AEDU, you can't add fun colorful class features as often. And what if you don't want your level 5 daily spell to get a better level 7 encounter power? You can't either. AEDU is too rigid to deal with any of these situations and yet, these are the kinds of things that make a class unique.

No they aren't. They might help make a class unique if one class were FORCED, exactly as rigidly as 4E is, to use a DIFFERENT distribution.

If you could CHOOSE to take a level-2 utility power instead of a level 3 encounter power, that would make your character different - not your class. But there's no shortage of ways to make characters unique. The flexibility you ask for might be a good idea for any number of reasons (or might not), but it isn't needed for that specific purpose.

And finally, most encounter/daily powers are expressed as "deal X damage and apply Y condition".

Yeah, that's what spellcaster powers did in AD&D and 3E, too. For that matter, that's what fighters did too, except they got comparatively not much damage and really lame conditions. What's the problem?

And once again I got lost in details...

It really all comes down to this: what is enough differences to make classes feel different?

I don't think anyone will argue that the 3rd edition sorcerer and the 3rd edition wizard are different classes. And yet, they have 99.9% of their "powers" are in common.

To a lot of people, classes will feel the same if they do not have their own unique "class feature" progression and their own sub systems.

Also, and once again, that's a matter of personal perception, attack powers overlap too much in 4th edition. You don't feel like each class has its own unique set of attack powers. At least I don't.

But ultimately, I wasn't trying to convince you or make arguments of any kind. I was just trying to get you to see things through our eyes so that you might be able to understand (and still disagree).

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:00AM, warrl wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 12:09PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Problems with the execution of AEDU as a system:
1. Only system used for all classes.  This makes all the classes function the same to me, worse so, it made all monsters function the same, as well.

I've never understood how the layout of the character sheet makes classes that do entirely different things seem the same. The layout is really more important than the content?

The system(s) by which classes progress are hardly the "layout of the character sheet."  And I never said the systems are *more* important than the content.  Can they not be equally important?  Can we not compromise?

This thread asked for our personal issues with AEDU.  I presented mine.  You're free to not share my perception that it's an issue, or even my personal interpretation on how that design makes me feel.  To get a better understanding, I'd suggest reading my thoughts on the Fireball spell in this thread (or just read the entire discussion between Kalnuar and me).  I may not perceive a spell the same way you do.  Thus, I may not perceive a class the same way you do, either.  The classes, to me, feel like they are all the same, and I attribute that to the shared progression/feature system.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 2:39AM, Gnarl wrote:

 
And once again I got lost in details... 

Every person is identical when you choose to look at them from outer space.

OK not that helpful.

Let's see a character sheet is a structure most every character is expressed in... its also a bunch of slots where until you fill them all your character isnt really complete. The elements which make that character unique are what you put in those slots... your character isnt identical to mine because we all have 6 main stats.

And if my swordmages were using the same spells as another class I would think they felt like a variant of that class...  

And it sounds to me like the sorceror from 3e were wizards picked a different class feature.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 3:05AM, Garthanos wrote:

Every person is identical when you choose to look at them from outer space.

It's not where I was getting at... God my communication skills suck.

Classes with different sub systems and a different power list will feel a lot more different than classes that all use the same unified system with a different power list. I'm just stating the obvious here.

If you're rolling a % die to hit, you know you're not playing D&D. That's how important mechanics are in the differenciation process.

I really don't know how to explain the notion of different enough... Simply put, if two things aren't different enough, you're going to identify them as the same thing. "different enough" is a matter of how you differenciate two things and that's different from one person to another.

The problem with letting the flavor decide what happens is it is entirely up to the GM to determine what happens.

If the mechanics determine what happens the players and the GM know what is going to happen.


One is a game of make believe the other is a game where the world actually exists for all the players including the GM and is thus more realistic.    

Mar 19, 2012 -- 5:21AM, muppet1 wrote:

The problem with letting the flavor decide what happens is it is entirely up to the GM to determine what happens.

If the mechanics determine what happens the players and the GM know what is going to happen.


One is a game of make believe the other is a game where the world actually exists for all the players including the GM and is thus more realistic.    

Very true but thats D&D.  DM's being able to make spot decisions is what makes an RPG far superior to a video game.   The video game can only handle predefined options while the DM can adjudicate anything.  

I do want rules that are really helpful and apply in almost all common cases.  No argument there.  I do though think the game would lose something without any DM judgment.  Consistency is key in a roleplaying game and getting to know the DM and his way of calling situations is also important.    

The problem is the mechanics of the world have to be real mechanics.   I am happy for the GM to do the story telling and the real NPC reactions he is much better than the computer.  What the GM should not be doing is saying well today we will have gravity that varies each time someone makes an attack and I am going to make up exactly what that gravity will be and you have no way of knowing.


I want my world to be real I want the mechanics of the world to make sense.  This is what in the real world is called Physics.   The real world runs the mechanics of itself all by itself the people in the world make the story.   In the game world the mechanics should be known to all and real.  The GM decides on the plot the story and the way the NPCs react to the players not how the physics work.  

Mar 19, 2012 -- 5:51AM, muppet1 wrote:

The problem is the mechanics of the world have to be real mechanics.   I am happy for the GM to do the story telling and the real NPC reactions he is much better than the computer.  What the GM should not be doing is saying well today we will have gravity that varies each time someone makes an attack and I am going to make up exactly what that gravity will be and you have no way of knowing.


I want my world to be real I want the mechanics of the world to make sense.  This is what in the real world is called Physics.   The real world runs the mechanics of itself all by itself the people in the world make the story.   In the game world the mechanics should be known to all and real.  The GM decides on the plot the story and the way the NPCs react to the players not how the physics work.  

No disagreement here.   I'm assuming that in boundary cases not covered by the rules the DM has to make a judgment.  I'm also assuming that the DM is free to change a rule before the game starts but that is another area of discussion and not what's being discussed here.

I agree that the mechanics of the game should represent the reality of the game world.  The issue is my fireball example.  The mechanics might just say 5d6 damage in a radius 20.  If so then it is not a fireball right?  No mention of fire.   Now if it says 5d6 fire damage in a radius 20 then that would make it a fireball.  But what would be the significance of it being called fire damage?  Well I would say it's not usable underwater.  I might let a group use the spell to catch a building on fire.  These are DM judgments yes but based upon the mechanics.

 

Mar 19, 2012 -- 5:51AM, muppet1 wrote:

I want my world to be real I want the mechanics of the world to make sense.  This is what in the real world is called Physics.   The real world runs the mechanics of itself all by itself the people in the world make the story.   In the game world the mechanics should be known to all and real.  The GM decides on the plot the story and the way the NPCs react to the players not how the physics work.

The problem is that the books can only document just so much physics.  It is up to the DM to adjudicate (nice word, Emerikol) what mechanics should actually occur within each given situation.  Every time the mechanics work as written is a time the DM found in favor of the books.

As we have significantly clarified through discussions here in this thread, for some players, the flavor is a source of inspiration for them, which can be reworked and overwritten often, but the RAW (Rules-as-Written) are paramount to the game, and should be changed minimally.  For others, the rules are a frame of reference, which can be reworked and overwritten often, but the FAW (Flavor-as-Written) is paramount to the game, and should be changed minimally.  I'm sure most players don't sit at extreme ends of this axis as many vocal participants of the forum do (I could be wrong), but that seems to be the generally agreed upon conclusion.

The question is what do you consider flexible?  (That's a general "you," as you specifically have already answered).

I also want to give a shout to Facet's point that if he did allow for the RAW to hold in many situations, his players would not appreciate it.  This isn't just some "evil DM" thing.

I think the OP is partly correct. 

In retrospect I think they should have structuced PCs differently from the start.  Even though I have never minded martial PCs having dailies, I think it might have been more insteresting to give martial PCs only at wills and encounter powers or something.  Maybe they could give them an extra at will to pick from too.

The reason they did AEDU that way is that giving all classes the same power structure is the easiest way to make all classes interesting and balanced at the same time.   They varied that with PHB3 and essentials, but those classes were minorly unbalanced.  With power point classes ending up keeping a bunch of low level powers because it was better to spam those then to retrained and essentials martials PC not having the nova potential and outlasting daily PCs at lower levels.  4E is the only edition where almost every class looks interesting and balanced to me and there are very few classes where I am not interested in them at all, and that is usually for flavor reasons or because with some of the later classes they were too underpowered.

The other issue that someone mentioned earlier is that they should have spread out class features more.  They did this with essentials and its the one part of essentials I really like, with classes like slayers and warpriests getting more build specific abilities and features as they level.  That was one thing 4E was missing from the beginning that a lot of previous editions had. 

And slightly related to this, I think they should have given every build or class a specific at will and then let them pick from two more.  Sort of like how all the essentials mages get magic missile.

I think the biggest reason for RAW is the increasing portability of PCs to other DM's games (Store or Con Play).  Without trying to keep to RAW how does a player know how their character will work in this DM's game?

Gnarl, you are very right about the current implementation of Aedu.  While im glad that Wotc created essentials classes to be easier, I think they missed the opportunity to make obviously non combat class options.   If people could trade out encounters for utilities, they'd know they were making an intentional non-combat choice,  and that's cool.   Just don't let people do the opposite - we want all of our characters to have non combat options, otherwise we risk allowing people to 100% specialize in combat, and that type of choice is bad for the game.   

You also recommended trading a daily for a higher level encounter power.   That kind of thing is cool, but the reverse would need to be balanced carefully.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 7:40AM, GelatinousOctahedron wrote:

In retrospect I think they should have structuced PCs differently from the start.

Disagree, if they didn't make PHB1 all the same, i  to think of how bad balance would of been.  They simply didn't have the skills to balance different power structures.

The reason they did AEDU that way is that giving all classes the same power structure is the easiest way to make all classes interesting and balanced at the same time.   They varied that with PHB3 and essentials, but those classes were minorly unbalanced. 

I disagree with this too.

PHB1: all the same, poor balance.
PHB2: all the same, good balance.
PHB3: somewhat different, moderate balance.
HoFL/K: very different, good balance.


I took them a few years, but 4e taught them basic mathmatics and game mechanics.  (3.5 gave them good writing skills.)

Mar 19, 2012 -- 5:51AM, muppet1 wrote:

The problem is the mechanics of the world have to be real mechanics.   I am happy for the GM to do the story telling and the real NPC reactions he is much better than the computer.  What the GM should not be doing is saying well today we will have gravity that varies each time someone makes an attack and I am going to make up exactly what that gravity will be and you have no way of knowing.

Well, in one campaign I'm in the party recently got aboard a rocket and launched themselves into space. So variable gravity in a D&D game isn't totally out of the question.

I want my world to be real I want the mechanics of the world to make sense.  This is what in the real world is called Physics.   The real world runs the mechanics of itself all by itself the people in the world make the story.   In the game world the mechanics should be known to all and real.

At the same time, they don't have to match real-world mechanics... or the mechanics expressed in the default fluff. They just have to be understood to the appropriate degree, and make sense.

Yeah, but all the unbalanced stuff in 4E PHB wasn't because of the power structure, its because they didn't know what they were doing with 4E yet.  By PHB2 they knew what they were doing and its the best overall PHB in terms of making everything balanced and interesting.

The unbalanced stuff from PHB1: Dual attack stats (which no post PHB1 class has) and madness, scaling bonuses to d20s based on your stat bonuses (righteous brand/orbwizards), overvaluing big numbers in powers, undervaluing granted and multi attacks, and poorly thought up powers for some classes that didn't have many choices yet (clerics and paladins in particular suffered from this).

I think you could go back with what they know now and build a weaponmaster or warlord with AEU and make it work well.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 9:12AM, GelatinousOctahedron wrote:

Yeah, but all the unbalanced stuff in 4E PHB wasn't because of the power structure, its because they didn't know what they were doing with 4E yet.

I agree.
Different power structures do not make things unbalanced.
Different power structures make things harder to balance.

That said, i feel they have a much better understanding of the pitfalls now, and i'm glad they've branched out.


Still, I like the AEDU structure the best.  Because it gives a nice blend of small, medium, and big guns with nice tactial and stratigic implications.  Though i kinda wish U was out-of-combat-U.  Not "defensive power".

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:37AM, Gnarl wrote:

It's not just the layout.

You don't really have classes that are 100% combat and another one that is 80% combat/20% social etc...

All classes are consistent and balanced against one another in all situations with AEDU.

Dang, we wish that was true. We like having all characters be of some legitimate use in nearly-all situations.

That's expressing my opinion quite truthfully.

I want a system where 80/20 split is utterly impossible without the addition of optional modules. I want a system where 100/100 is the norm. And the rest is added as an option for those who really want it. But I want a bard and a fighter to be equally useful in combat, exploration, travel, investigation and socialization; I also want them to be useful in different ways. The bard should be able to talk better than the fighter, but the fighter should have something to do when we're talking. Maybe he has reputation he can use, maybe he has contacts, maybe he is good at imposing his presence, I don't know and don't really care. As long as they are both useful in every situation. Or put in a better way they are both useful in every kind of situation: I'm ok with talking being situationally more useful than imposing your presence as long as it's possible to have the reverse too.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 9:54AM, TheMormegil wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:37AM, Gnarl wrote:

It's not just the layout.

You don't really have classes that are 100% combat and another one that is 80% combat/20% social etc...

All classes are consistent and balanced against one another in all situations with AEDU.

Dang, we wish that was true. We like having all characters be of some legitimate use in nearly-all situations.

That's expressing my opinion quite truthfully.

I want a system where 80/20 split is utterly impossible without the addition of optional modules. I want a system where 100/100 is the norm. And the rest is added as an option for those who really want it. But I want a bard and a fighter to be equally useful in combat, exploration, travel, investigation and socialization; I also want them to be useful in different ways. The bard should be able to talk better than the fighter, but the fighter should have something to do when we're talking. Maybe he has reputation he can use, maybe he has contacts, maybe he is good at imposing his presence, I don't know and don't really care. As long as they are both useful in every situation. Or put in a better way they are both useful in every kind of situation: I'm ok with talking being situationally more useful than imposing your presence as long as it's possible to have the reverse too.

Yeah, 100/100 is what I want to see as well.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 9:54AM, TheMormegil wrote:

I want a system where 80/20 split is utterly impossible without the addition of optional modules. I want a system where 100/100 is the norm. And the rest is added as an option for those who really want it. But I want a bard and a fighter to be equally useful in combat, exploration, travel, investigation and socialization; I also want them to be useful in different ways. The bard should be able to talk better than the fighter, but the fighter should have something to do when we're talking. Maybe he has reputation he can use, maybe he has contacts, maybe he is good at imposing his presence, I don't know and don't really care. As long as they are both useful in every situation. Or put in a better way they are both useful in every kind of situation: I'm ok with talking being situationally more useful than imposing your presence as long as it's possible to have the reverse too.

+1

And we could have had this in 4e if, as Mellored suggests, utility powers were strictly for non-combat encounters instead of being a mix of combat and non-combat. I could see taking the AEDU system and adding another "D" for "Defensive," and splitting off those various defensive utilities into their own categories.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the use of class skills and different ability score bonuses to exclude characters from certain kinds of encounters. If you're a Fighter in 3rd or 4th edition and it's a social encounter, you're forced to sit out and wait until an opportunity to be usefully intimidating comes along, or you have to ignore your character sheet and roleplay in a way that's not supported by your skills or ability scores.

As far as the main topic goes, is AEDU incompatible with using different subsystems to differentiate between classes? 4e already does this to a certain degree. In my opinion, a Warden feels very different from a Fighter despite both being AEDU melee defenders due to the different ways in which their class features work, if not significant differences in their powers. If we created even greater differentiation through class features but kept AEDU, would they still end up feeling "samey"?

Mar 19, 2012 -- 9:54AM, TheMormegil wrote:

That's expressing my opinion quite truthfully.

I want a system where 80/20 split is utterly impossible without the addition of optional modules. I want a system where 100/100 is the norm. And the rest is added as an option for those who really want it. But I want a bard and a fighter to be equally useful in combat, exploration, travel, investigation and socialization; I also want them to be useful in different ways. The bard should be able to talk better than the fighter, but the fighter should have something to do when we're talking. Maybe he has reputation he can use, maybe he has contacts, maybe he is good at imposing his presence, I don't know and don't really care. As long as they are both useful in every situation. Or put in a better way they are both useful in every kind of situation: I'm ok with talking being situationally more useful than imposing your presence as long as it's possible to have the reverse too.

I'm probably misunderstanding what you're trying to say because this sounds unreasonable and that doesn't qualify you at all.

What exactly are we talking about here?


a) Each character can select options to deal with different situations. Depending on the feats and skills you have selected, you will be good at some things, and not as good at others. But no matter how highly specialized you are, the difference with a non specialist is marginal. In other words, if you take lots of options, the difference between an untrained fighter and a train rogue will be less than 25% (+5).

b) Each class can be good at everything provided they take the right skills and feats. But no class has more options than another for each given situation. In other words, a fighter can be as stealthy as a rogue because the fighter also has access to or an equivalent to the dozen feats or class feature a rogue could have taken to be better at stealth.

What you're describing looks like on of these two propositions and that doesn't sound fun to play. Both result in a near classeless system which I like. But in D&D, I don't think that's such a good idea.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:47AM, Gnarl wrote:

What exactly are we talking about here?

Combat vs non-combat.  WoTC said they where going to make fighters 100% combat, and bards 80% combat, and 20% non-combat.



Basicly he wants each class to get the same number of combat feat/power/skill, and a non-combat feat/power/skill.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:47AM, Gnarl wrote:

I'm probably misunderstanding what you're trying to say because this sounds unreasonable and that doesn't qualify you at all.

What exactly are we talking about here?


a) Each character can select options to deal with different situations. Depending on the feats and skills you have selected, you will be good at some things, and not as good at others. But no matter how highly specialized you are, the difference with a non specialist is marginal. In other words, if you take lots of options, the difference between an untrained fighter and a train rogue will be less than 25% (+5).

b) Each class can be good at everything provided they take the right skills and feats. But no class has more options than another for each given situation. In other words, a fighter can be as stealthy as a rogue because the fighter also has access to or an equivalent to the dozen feats or class feature a rogue could have taken to be better at stealth.

What you're describing looks like on of these two propositions and that doesn't sound fun to play. Both result in a near classeless system which I like. But in D&D, I don't think that's such a good idea.

I'd go with a mix of the above, but not quite.

I agree a Rogue should be stealthier than a Fighter. Even much more stealthier. What I don't agree with is the fighter having to sit out all the instances where stealth is useful. If you want to have infiltration as part of your game, it shouldn't be a part where you have two people sitting on their hands and waiting for the rest to finish.

I don't know nor care how you would accomplish that goal. My take is that you split up the rules into different broad situations and give each class abilities that are useful in that situation in different ways. Much like a fighter is useful in a fight as a defender while a wizard is useful as a controller, you should be able to have the same differences but equality in all other instances. 

Mar 17, 2012 -- 8:10AM, mattador666 wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 7:58AM, Emerikol wrote:

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

1.  Wizard isn't the BMOC anymore.

1.  It's different.

3.  Wizard isn't the BMOC anymore.

This.

Mar 17, 2012 -- 5:21PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

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

So how did you take care of that kobold infestation in your back yard?

Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:11PM, TheMormegil wrote:

I agree a Rogue should be stealthier than a Fighter. Even much more stealthier. What I don't agree with is the fighter having to sit out all the instances where stealth is useful. If you want to have infiltration as part of your game, it shouldn't be a part where you have two people sitting on their hands and waiting for the rest to finish.

I totally understand where you're coming from though. I know that I almost never create situations where the party will be seperated for more than 30 minutes to an hour because that's about how much time those not playing can stay interested. But not having someone wait while the stealthy guy scouts ahead contradicts the very notions of training, specialization and classes.

Either the rogue is much stealthier than the fighter or he's not! If the rogue is stealthier, than it doesn't make sense for the fighter to tag along. Your chance of failure is determined by the weak link in your party. That's true even if the difference is as low as +5 bonus on 1d20. And 25% isn't much, it's skill training in 4th edition.

It's the same than with social encounters or exploration. If you have low charisma and no skill training, you can always participate but it would be easier to just shut up and let the party face do the job.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:11PM, TheMormegil wrote:

I don't know nor care how you would accomplish that goal. My take is that you split up the rules into different broad situations and give each class abilities that are useful in that situation in different ways. Much like a fighter is useful in a fight as a defender while a wizard is useful as a controller, you should be able to have the same differences but equality in all other instances. 

Hmm, cooperative problem solving. That's really the ideal situation because it's fun for everybody. But defining these situations is both the key and the problem.

For instance, if you have a "enter the castle and save the hostages" scenario. What is the "non combat" situation? 

The cleric uses his diplomacy and religious connections to learn that there's a secret tunnel to get inside the castle walls. The wizard* uses his invisibility sphere to maintain the party hidden from guards but since it doesn't negate silence, the rogue still needs to scout ahead to make sure nobody can hear the party. The entrance of the dungeon is blocked by a portcullis that can only be opened from the other side and a guard. The party rogue uses his deadly stealth attack to eliminate the guard without noise. The wizard* casts gaseous form on the fighter so that the fighter can use his incredible strenght to lift the protcullis.

That's my ideal situations. But it seems so different than what you're describing. The way you word it, it sounds like you would like the "learning that there's a secret tunnel" part to be something cooperative, the "hiding to avoid being seen by the guards" part cooperative, the "lifting the protcullis" to be cooperative and so on.

(*) replace wizard with any character with the right rituals. I don't want a 'you want wizards to be gods' thread again.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 8:09AM, mellored wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 7:40AM, GelatinousOctahedron wrote:

In retrospect I think they should have structuced PCs differently from the start.

Disagree, if they didn't make PHB1 all the same, i  to think of how bad balance would of been.  They simply didn't have the skills to balance different power structures.

The reason they did AEDU that way is that giving all classes the same power structure is the easiest way to make all classes interesting and balanced at the same time.   They varied that with PHB3 and essentials, but those classes were minorly unbalanced. 

I disagree with this too.

PHB1: all the same, poor balance.
PHB2: all the same, good balance.
PHB3: somewhat different, moderate balance.
HoFL/K: very different, good balance.


I took them a few years, but 4e taught them basic mathmatics and game mechanics.  (3.5 gave them good writing skills.)

Wait.

Essential is very different?
I don't think that,dude.(well if you only mention late Essential, maybe I agree)

Essentail is go back to the day of 3.5, that every melee damage dealer are play the same.
except this time they ALL have same BAB which make it worse

All of them is doing charge, charge, charge and charge with melee basic every turn.
Slayer, Blackguard, Thief, Scout, you name it

If they are melee striker, all of them is charger.

And every items they want is the same(charge OP item),
vanguard/thundergod weapon, horn helm, Badge of berserker etc.

Sure, you can make them non-charger, but you will be weaker.


Back in original 4e, all melee class play different.

Ranger benefic for lone-fighting style,
most of your bonus only activate when you are the only one closest to that enemy. 

Rogue is team-player, they need combat advantage every turn to do damage(without CA, rogue is noting),
and they are fragile,so they need teammate to be around or use other trick to stay out of harm way.

Barbarian is a charger, they lack reliable rider effect, so they need other source to add up,
and their key at-will power can use on charge.(they have good charge relate feat,too)

Avenger has many way to play, depend on which feature you choose when you make them,
Retribution avenger is lone-fighting, Pursuit avenger is off-tank and sometime a charger,
Unity avenger is team-player.


Essentail also suffer from balance, most of them are weaker compare to their 4e counterpart
(except mage/wizard, skald/bard and executioner/assassin IMO)
When you mix them together, class balance is throwing out of the window.

Baldo, you miunderstand what he is saying.  They are built differently in the context of AEDU.  It has nothing to do directly with how you play them.  For instance all the PHB 1 & 2 classes and builds use AEDU.  Some of the essentials classes do and some don't.  That is what he means by different.

Warpriest isn't weaker than templar cleric overall either.  They are fairly balanced against each other for the most part.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:03PM, Gnarl wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:11PM, TheMormegil wrote:

I agree a Rogue should be stealthier than a Fighter. Even much more stealthier. What I don't agree with is the fighter having to sit out all the instances where stealth is useful. If you want to have infiltration as part of your game, it shouldn't be a part where you have two people sitting on their hands and waiting for the rest to finish.

I totally understand where you're coming from though. I know that I almost never create situations where the party will be seperated for more than 30 minutes to an hour because that's about how much time those not playing can stay interested. But not having someone wait while the stealthy guy scouts ahead contradicts the very notions of training, specialization and classes.

Eh, I don't care. As long as it keeps the game fun.
You see, I can dig the rogue being able to scout ahead if needed. I just want the fighter to be able to follow if needed. He probably won't be as good, and may need other solutions, but he shouldn't stay behind on a whole adventure just because he wears heavy armor. If the scouting lasts five - ten minutes? Ok. But the scouting is just and example (and a bad one since you don't spend whole hours scouting). Take social interaction: should the fighter sit on his toes because the bard is the one doing the talking? Hell no! Social interaction is a major part of the game, as is combat. Of course the bard should be able to talk better, but the fighter needs SOMETHING to do in social situations.

Either the rogue is much stealthier than the fighter or he's not! If the rogue is stealthier, than it doesn't make sense for the fighter to tag along. Your chance of failure is determined by the weak link in your party. That's true even if the difference is as low as +5 bonus on 1d20. And 25% isn't much, it's skill training in 4th edition.

It's the same than with social encounters or exploration. If you have low charisma and no skill training, you can always participate but it would be easier to just shut up and let the party face do the job.

This is exactly what I want to avoid, 100%.

Hmm, cooperative problem solving. That's really the ideal situation because it's fun for everybody. But defining these situations is both the key and the problem.

For instance, if you have a "enter the castle and save the hostages" scenario. What is the "non combat" situation? 

The cleric uses his diplomacy and religious connections to learn that there's a secret tunnel to get inside the castle walls. The wizard* uses his invisibility sphere to maintain the party hidden from guards but since it doesn't negate silence, the rogue still needs to scout ahead to make sure nobody can hear the party. The entrance of the dungeon is blocked by a portcullis that can only be opened from the other side and a guard. The party rogue uses his deadly stealth attack to eliminate the guard without noise. The wizard* casts gaseous form on the fighter so that the fighter can use his incredible strenght to lift the protcullis.

That's my ideal situations. But it seems so different than what you're describing. The way you word it, it sounds like you would like the "learning that there's a secret tunnel" part to be something cooperative, the "hiding to avoid being seen by the guards" part cooperative, the "lifting the protcullis" to be cooperative and so on.

(*) replace wizard with any character with the right rituals. I don't want a 'you want wizards to be gods' thread again.

I think there's five core parts of the game. That's my personal take, of course, but I believe it is true.
Those are: combat (everyone should be able to fight as efficiently as others, but in different ways; see 4E), socialization (everyone should have something to do while talking), exploration (everyone should be able to contribute; the rogue can scout ahead while the fighter lifts heavy things or stuff like that, but everyone needs something to do in these situations), investigation (I'm tired of divinations being the best way to gather information; I want everyone - yes, even fighters - to be able to find information through knowledge checks, contacts, gather information skills, divinations, what have you) and travel (teleport >> all is not fun. If the wizard can teleport, the rogue should have an airship).

I agree with your above example, but I think the gather info part is something everyone should contribute to. The fighter knows the castle's plant because he studied similar castles. The rogue infiltrates the castle or talks with the people of the town or seduces the barmaid or something. The wizard and cleric cast divinations. Everyone should be able to gain information one way or another.
The infiltration part is good (only part I don't like is the fighter being pretty much useless, there's still some work to do on that concept).

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:31PM, TheMormegil wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:03PM, Gnarl wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:11PM, TheMormegil wrote:

I agree a Rogue should be stealthier than a Fighter. Even much more stealthier. What I don't agree with is the fighter having to sit out all the instances where stealth is useful. If you want to have infiltration as part of your game, it shouldn't be a part where you have two people sitting on their hands and waiting for the rest to finish.

I totally understand where you're coming from though. I know that I almost never create situations where the party will be seperated for more than 30 minutes to an hour because that's about how much time those not playing can stay interested. But not having someone wait while the stealthy guy scouts ahead contradicts the very notions of training, specialization and classes.

Eh, I don't care. As long as it keeps the game fun.
You see, I can dig the rogue being able to scout ahead if needed. I just want the fighter to be able to follow if needed. He probably won't be as good, and may need other solutions, but he shouldn't stay behind on a whole adventure just because he wears heavy armor. If the scouting lasts five - ten minutes? Ok. But the scouting is just and example (and a bad one since you don't spend whole hours scouting). Take social interaction: should the fighter sit on his toes because the bard is the one doing the talking? Hell no! Social interaction is a major part of the game, as is combat. Of course the bard should be able to talk better, but the fighter needs SOMETHING to do in social situations.

Either the rogue is much stealthier than the fighter or he's not! If the rogue is stealthier, than it doesn't make sense for the fighter to tag along. Your chance of failure is determined by the weak link in your party. That's true even if the difference is as low as +5 bonus on 1d20. And 25% isn't much, it's skill training in 4th edition.

It's the same than with social encounters or exploration. If you have low charisma and no skill training, you can always participate but it would be easier to just shut up and let the party face do the job.

This is exactly what I want to avoid, 100%.

Hmm, cooperative problem solving. That's really the ideal situation because it's fun for everybody. But defining these situations is both the key and the problem.

For instance, if you have a "enter the castle and save the hostages" scenario. What is the "non combat" situation? 

The cleric uses his diplomacy and religious connections to learn that there's a secret tunnel to get inside the castle walls. The wizard* uses his invisibility sphere to maintain the party hidden from guards but since it doesn't negate silence, the rogue still needs to scout ahead to make sure nobody can hear the party. The entrance of the dungeon is blocked by a portcullis that can only be opened from the other side and a guard. The party rogue uses his deadly stealth attack to eliminate the guard without noise. The wizard* casts gaseous form on the fighter so that the fighter can use his incredible strenght to lift the protcullis.

That's my ideal situations. But it seems so different than what you're describing. The way you word it, it sounds like you would like the "learning that there's a secret tunnel" part to be something cooperative, the "hiding to avoid being seen by the guards" part cooperative, the "lifting the protcullis" to be cooperative and so on.

(*) replace wizard with any character with the right rituals. I don't want a 'you want wizards to be gods' thread again.

I think there's five core parts of the game. That's my personal take, of course, but I believe it is true.
Those are: combat (everyone should be able to fight as efficiently as others, but in different ways; see 4E), socialization (everyone should have something to do while talking), exploration (everyone should be able to contribute; the rogue can scout ahead while the fighter lifts heavy things or stuff like that, but everyone needs something to do in these situations), investigation (I'm tired of divinations being the best way to gather information; I want everyone - yes, even fighters - to be able to find information through knowledge checks, contacts, gather information skills, divinations, what have you) and travel (teleport >> all is not fun. If the wizard can teleport, the rogue should have an airship).

I agree with your above example, but I think the gather info part is something everyone should contribute to. The fighter knows the castle's plant because he studied similar castles. The rogue infiltrates the castle or talks with the people of the town or seduces the barmaid or something. The wizard and cleric cast divinations. Everyone should be able to gain information one way or another.
The infiltration part is good (only part I don't like is the fighter being pretty much useless, there's still some work to do on that concept).

Does everyone forget that the Fighter in 4th ed gets Streetwise as a class skill to be trained?  Was this not common before?  Because I also see that as a social skill.

Perhaps that's just me.

Though I totally dig what else you're talking about, Mor.  I would also put forth that people could be given powers similar to the "LazyLord" powers if they don't want to be good at combat to enable their buddies.  Coward=Leader role!

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:44PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Does everyone forget that the Fighter in 4th ed gets Streetwise as a class skill to be trained?  Was this not common before?  Because I also see that as a social skill.

Perhaps that's just me.

Though I totally dig what else you're talking about, Mor.  I would also put forth that people could be given powers similar to the "LazyLord" powers if they don't want to be good at combat to enable their buddies.  Coward=Leader role!

Not common before, no. Also, the Fighter still has sucky Charisma in every possible build (Wis is strictly more important) and he's going to have a lower Streetwise modifier than the Sorcerer after level 8 even if he's trained...

Also, the enabler role could work in some other situations too perhaps. I can totally see a wizard whispering suggestions on what to say to the bard, who then says it better. 

Of course there is always "Aid Another"

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:51PM, TheMormegil wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:44PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Does everyone forget that the Fighter in 4th ed gets Streetwise as a class skill to be trained?  Was this not common before?  Because I also see that as a social skill.

Perhaps that's just me.

Though I totally dig what else you're talking about, Mor.  I would also put forth that people could be given powers similar to the "LazyLord" powers if they don't want to be good at combat to enable their buddies.  Coward=Leader role!

Not common before, no. Also, the Fighter still has sucky Charisma in every possible build (Wis is strictly more important) and he's going to have a lower Streetwise modifier than the Sorcerer after level 8 even if he's trained...

Also, the enabler role could work in some other situations too perhaps. I can totally see a wizard whispering suggestions on what to say to the bard, who then says it better. 

I totally support aid other as an active role.  Example with the fighter would be telling the "face" about what he observed in fighting their enemy, and what it could mean, and then have the "face" relay that information.

Also, perhaps fighters need a wider skill range.  For example, I see no reason for a fighter not to be able to train in Dungeoneering or Insight.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:31PM, TheMormegil wrote:

I think there's five core parts of the game. That's my personal take, of course, but I believe it is true.
Those are: combat (everyone should be able to fight as efficiently as others, but in different ways; see 4E), socialization (everyone should have something to do while talking), exploration (everyone should be able to contribute; the rogue can scout ahead while the fighter lifts heavy things or stuff like that, but everyone needs something to do in these situations), investigation (I'm tired of divinations being the best way to gather information; I want everyone - yes, even fighters - to be able to find information through knowledge checks, contacts, gather information skills, divinations, what have you) and travel (teleport >> all is not fun. If the wizard can teleport, the rogue should have an airship).

I agree with your above example, but I think the gather info part is something everyone should contribute to. The fighter knows the castle's plant because he studied similar castles. The rogue infiltrates the castle or talks with the people of the town or seduces the barmaid or something. The wizard and cleric cast divinations. Everyone should be able to gain information one way or another.
The infiltration part is good (only part I don't like is the fighter being pretty much useless, there's still some work to do on that concept).

Just as I thought so. I agree with about 99.9% of what you just said here. You're even going one step further than what I ever thought about, but in the right direction. I especially agree about the divinations. Not because I don't like divinations, but because they remove a whole (very enjoyable) segment of low level game play.

I agree that the fighter is pretty much uselss in that short story because the fighter is too god damn generic! A swashbuckler would have slept with the duke's daughter to gain information on the secret tunnel and a barbarian would have intimidated the duke's cowardly son. You got the idea anyways. To me, there's room for every class in a very different orginal way and that's what matters to me.

As far as the stealth thing goes, I had experience with that once during our Shadowfell game. Somone who gave s a job suddenly refused to let us into the castle, so, curious, I snuck in, being the only stealth-trained guy(Executioner) and being able to teleport through walls(Walk Through Shadows) to see what was up.

The rest of my party kinda twiddled their thumbs for a bit(Swordmage, Barbarian|Sorceror, a Bard/Warlock, and...some other class). WHen our Bard'lock gets an idea and, after conferring with the DM, managed to summon a small horde of low level demons and et them loose in the area to give me a distraction(which was great, because I botched a stealth check and got spotted by some guards).

But yeah, it was fun and someone in our party managed to do something to contribute, but there wasn't too much they could do otherwise. It didn't help that said stealth mission was more a "Hey, I'll brb, I'm gonna sneak in here bai" flke than an actual stealth mission.

Sign me up for every class being 100%/100%, contributing on different ways (Fighter and Bard stage a drunken distubance at the front of a manor while the stealthy ones break in and let them in the back door later? Yes please!).

I don't mind some minor leeway (say... allowing Bards or another class reknown for it's skills having the same amount of major skills as everyone, but also allowing them to fill some minor rolls that are left), but making some classes good at OoC at the cost of combat is just asking for imbalance and disgruntled characters. Also makes it very difficult to move characters between DMs.

Make them all interesting, WotC. Let them all contribute in different ways. Don't let any one class dominate the combat or social spotlight, and be a joke in the other.

Mar 19, 2012 -- 2:01PM, MWSAber wrote:

Of course there is always "Aid Another"

Yeah... that sucks. It's like "What he said. I got a 16, that's +2 to his roll. Call me when I'm really needed."

I mean, really? +2 to a roll? Wow. I need something more to really be engaged...

 

Mar 19, 2012 -- 2:03PM, Gnarl wrote:

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:31PM, TheMormegil wrote:

I think there's five core parts of the game. That's my personal take, of course, but I believe it is true.
Those are: combat (everyone should be able to fight as efficiently as others, but in different ways; see 4E), socialization (everyone should have something to do while talking), exploration (everyone should be able to contribute; the rogue can scout ahead while the fighter lifts heavy things or stuff like that, but everyone needs something to do in these situations), investigation (I'm tired of divinations being the best way to gather information; I want everyone - yes, even fighters - to be able to find information through knowledge checks, contacts, gather information skills, divinations, what have you) and travel (teleport >> all is not fun. If the wizard can teleport, the rogue should have an airship).

I agree with your above example, but I think the gather info part is something everyone should contribute to. The fighter knows the castle's plant because he studied similar castles. The rogue infiltrates the castle or talks with the people of the town or seduces the barmaid or something. The wizard and cleric cast divinations. Everyone should be able to gain information one way or another.
The infiltration part is good (only part I don't like is the fighter being pretty much useless, there's still some work to do on that concept).

Just as I thought so. I agree with about 99.9% of what you just said here. You're even going one step further than what I ever thought about, but in the right direction. I especially agree about the divinations. Not because I don't like divinations, but because they remove a whole (very enjoyable) segment of low level game play.

I agree that the fighter is pretty much uselss in that short story because the fighter is too god damn generic! A swashbuckler would have slept with the duke's daughter to gain information on the secret tunnel and a barbarian would have intimidated the duke's cowardly son. You got the idea anyways. To me, there's room for every class in a very different orginal way and that's what matters to me.

yup, skill challenge is always the bane of fighter.

I have to add more option to give to our fighter. 

For something like gathering infomation or investigation.

I add arm-wrestling competition.( Athletic check)
Ale drinking competition (Endurance check)
or whatever deed that can impress the crowd, then they will give you infomation in return

I add them to my campaign (I'm a DM), and it's turn quite well.

Mar 17, 2012 -- 7:03PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 6:32PM, Facet wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 4:21PM, upho wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 1:52PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals.

Exactly. 

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

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

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

No! Prone is being used to describe a physical situation that results in the "collection of effects". Therefore, if the creature is not susceptable to the physical situation, it should not be susceptable to the "collection of effects" of that physical situation.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:07AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

No! Prone is being used to describe a physical situation that results in the "collection of effects". Therefore, if the creature is not susceptable to the physical situation, it should not be susceptable to the "collection of effects" of that physical situation.

No prone is the word referring to a collection of effects which can be achieved many many ways, unless you want a bunch of words that refer to a  bunch of situations which induce very similar "collection of effects"

I dont want smashed (deformed by force) and hardened (deformed by ice) which create the same effects as prone but just for oozes...

There is a point of practicality involved.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:14AM, Garthanos wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:07AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

No! Prone is being used to describe a physical situation that results in the "collection of effects". Therefore, if the creature is not susceptible to the physical situation, it should not be susceptible to the "collection of effects" of that physical situation.

No prone is the word referring to a collection of effects which can be achieved many many ways, unless you want a bunch of words that refer to a  bunch of situations which induce very similar "collection of effects"

I dont want smashed (deformed by force) and hardened (deformed by ice) which create the same effects as prone but just for oozes...

There is a point of practicality involved.

Then why so many powers among the different classes that mechanically do the same thing, or have the same "collection of effects"; in fact, there probably are other powers (with other keywords) that have the same "collection of effects". Why not use the power that has the applicable keyword.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:14AM, Garthanos wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:07AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

No! Prone is being used to describe a physical situation that results in the "collection of effects". Therefore, if the creature is not susceptable to the physical situation, it should not be susceptable to the "collection of effects" of that physical situation.

No prone is the word referring to a collection of effects which can be achieved many many ways, unless you want a bunch of words that refer to a  bunch of situations which induce very similar "collection of effects"

I dont want smashed (deformed by force) and hardened (deformed by ice) which create the same effects as prone but just for oozes...

There is a point of practicality involved.

I agree.   There needs to be a balance between narritive and abstraction.

So while having each power have a specific effect on a specific monster would be awsome from a narritive standpoint.  There's would be far to many to manage.

And likewise, having 4 conditions apply across everything would be simple, but it creates a disconnect between the narritive.


Of course, where you draw the line depends on the person.  Is there enough difference between restrained and immobilized to warrent both?

Not that any line will be perfect, and sometime we will have to wrap narritive around mechanics, and sometime mechanics around narritive.

Bait and switch eh lower level effect names are mechanics higher level naming are flavor.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:23AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

  Why not use the power that has the applicable keyword.

Maybe because I would need many times the powers... to affect a reasonable set of creatures..


Editted a more on target response.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Garthanos wrote:

 
Maybe because I would need many times the powers... to affect a reasonable set of creatures.

That's the point. You shouldn't be able to change a power designed to do one thing and make it do something that another power can do; because then your "stepping on the toes" of the other power's usefulness.

In the example given of the pudding and the prone power, there are other powers (possibly only usable by different classes) that can affect the pudding with the same mechanical results. I would think it would be something magical (arcane/divine/primal) that can affect a pudding that way, but not something physical (martial). This keeps the different power sources from becoming so similar that their distinctions aren't needed.

So, a martial character is less effective against certain creatures than characters of the other power sources (and vice versa); that's what makes different characters valuable in different situations.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 11:32AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

In the example given of the pudding and the prone power, there are other powers (possibly only usable by different classes) that can affect the pudding with the same mechanical results. I would think it would be something magical (arcane/divine/primal) that can affect a pudding that way, but not something physical (martial). This keeps the different power sources from becoming so similar that their distinctions aren't needed.

So, a martial character is less effective against certain creatures than characters of the other power sources (and vice versa); that's what makes different characters valuable in different situations.

I strongly disagree with this.

Prone should be prone.  Weather via tripping, grease, earthquake.  It's the same condition.

Nothing about oozes say's they shouldn't be able to be tripped, but should fall over when they try walking on something slippery or having the ground under them shake.



And even if there where, you should not require a party to have a certain class or power source.  Martial characters should have options to do fire damage, wizards have options to do bludgeoning.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:07AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

No! Prone is being used to describe a physical situation that results in the "collection of effects". Therefore, if the creature is not susceptable to the physical situation, it should not be susceptable to the "collection of effects" of that physical situation.

For you, possibly. The point is, not everyone thinks like you, or will think like you.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:07AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

No! Prone is being used to describe a physical situation that results in the "collection of effects". Therefore, if the creature is not susceptable to the physical situation, it should not be susceptable to the "collection of effects" of that physical situation.

For you, possibly. The point is, not everyone thinks like you, or will think like you.

Prone is a name for a collection of effects that could mean anything. Instead of having 6 different collection of effects that are the same collection of effects except for the name. That is called waste of design and page space. It's like having 12 different weapons that are all 1d6 high crit light blades, instead of just one.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 2:07PM, Samrin wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:07AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

No! Prone is being used to describe a physical situation that results in the "collection of effects". Therefore, if the creature is not susceptable to the physical situation, it should not be susceptable to the "collection of effects" of that physical situation.

For you, possibly. The point is, not everyone thinks like you, or will think like you.

Prone is a name for a collection of effects that could mean anything. Instead of having 6 different collection of effects that are the same collection of effects except for the name. That is called waste of design and page space. It's like having 12 different weapons that are all 1d6 high crit light blades, instead of just one.

And that's what I was trying to point out.  He thinks it's an effect based on the world definition of prone, vs others who think it is a game definition defined by the rules within that word.

Just add more conditions is the ultimate answer, because there are examples in 4E where they went a little too far in simplifying things. But don't give up on the design principles of 4E, where everything is built up from a common base. There is so much material available for D&D, that this should be a straight forward task, so everyone can have a piece of the cake and eat it. When conditions are part of a heated debate like level or ability drain, then make it optional.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 11:32AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Garthanos wrote:

 
Maybe because I would need many times the powers... to affect a reasonable set of creatures.

That's the point. You shouldn't be able to change a power designed to do one thing and make it do something that another power can do; because then your "stepping on the toes" of the other power's usefulness.

In the example given of the pudding and the prone power, there are other powers (possibly only usable by different classes) that can affect the pudding with the same mechanical results. I would think it would be something magical (arcane/divine/primal) that can affect a pudding that way, but not something physical (martial). This keeps the different power sources from becoming so similar that their distinctions aren't needed.

Currently, my shield toting fighter can

• smash his shield onto and splooge the ooze,
• perform a pommel strike inducing momentary black out
• hook the dragons wing with his axe and induce its own movements to hurl it to the ground
• sweep the coils of an attacking serpent,
• disrupt the surface the giant is about to step on
• flip the gelatinous cube (also with the shield dont like touching them)
• and forearm strike the swordsman resulting in a enemy diving immediately after there weapon

and so on and so forth...  and all from one power.

Edit:Oh and did I mention his knock down assault isnt nerfed at high levels just because his enemies are almost always huge?

Mar 20, 2012 -- 11:32AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

So, a martial character is less effective against certain creatures than characters of the other power sources (and vice versa); that's what makes different characters valuable in different situations.

You live in that magical land called theory? the world of practice has written hundreds of letters to the rogue and I am unsure any were opened. 

Mar 20, 2012 -- 3:29PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 2:07PM, Samrin wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:07AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

No! Prone is being used to describe a physical situation that results in the "collection of effects". Therefore, if the creature is not susceptable to the physical situation, it should not be susceptable to the "collection of effects" of that physical situation.

For you, possibly. The point is, not everyone thinks like you, or will think like you.

Prone is a name for a collection of effects that could mean anything. Instead of having 6 different collection of effects that are the same collection of effects except for the name. That is called waste of design and page space. It's like having 12 different weapons that are all 1d6 high crit light blades, instead of just one.

And that's what I was trying to point out.  He thinks it's an effect based on the world definition of prone, vs others who think it is a game definition defined by the rules within that word.

I was reinforcing what you said. 

No, more conditions is not the answer, really. If anything, give a condition, and then a list of names that could apply to it. It's the same thing, only for some reason, it won't make people freak out.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 2:07PM, Samrin wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:07AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

No! Prone is being used to describe a physical situation that results in the "collection of effects". Therefore, if the creature is not susceptable to the physical situation, it should not be susceptable to the "collection of effects" of that physical situation.

For you, possibly. The point is, not everyone thinks like you, or will think like you.

Prone is a name for a collection of effects that could mean anything. Instead of having 6 different collection of effects that are the same collection of effects except for the name. That is called waste of design and page space. It's like having 12 different weapons that are all 1d6 high crit light blades, instead of just one.

Like I said early on, if it was called "Condition 12," the people that don't understand would understand.  It's amazing how stubborn the brain can be; when some can accept the term "Armor Class" when it has more to do than armor, but cannot handle "Prone" when it has more to do than being prone.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 5:26PM, Jharii wrote:

Like I said early on, if it was called "Condition 12," the people that don't understand would understand.  It's amazing how stubborn the brain can be; when some can accept the term "Armor Class" when it has more to do than armor, but cannot handle "Prone" when it has more to do than being prone.

Just to point out, if it was called "Condition 12," I would not like it because it's non-descript and unrelatable.  And the people that "don't understand" actually do understand, they just have a different perspective on what is important to them.

Mar 20, 2012 -- 5:29PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 5:26PM, Jharii wrote:

Like I said early on, if it was called "Condition 12," the people that don't understand would understand.  It's amazing how stubborn the brain can be; when some can accept the term "Armor Class" when it has more to do than armor, but cannot handle "Prone" when it has more to do than being prone.

Just to point out, if it was called "Condition 12," I would not like it because it's non-descript and unrelatable.  And the people that "don't understand" actually do understand, they just have a different perspective on what is important to them.

Replace "understand" with "accept," then.  Pretty sure you got the point, though.

But you're right, "Prone" is a name that was chosen because it does a good job describing the set of conditions.  Just replace the word "Prone" with "Squished" when you apply it to oozes, then.  Or don't apply it at all.  It doesn't really matter, as long as you accept the solution you want at your table.

EDIT: Hmmmmmm.  Interesting.  Didn't realize that this was not the ooze thread.  Pretty much the same topic sprung up here.  Oh, well. 

Yeah.  I'd rather just say conditions don't apply when they'd be silly.  I change the mechanic to reflect the flavor because to me whatever you are doing represents something real.   So if it's fire it doesn't work in water etc...  oozes aren't knocked prone.  Iron golems aren't dazed or stunned.  etc..

 

Mar 20, 2012 -- 8:10PM, Emerikol wrote:

Yeah.  I'd rather just say conditions don't apply when they'd be silly.  I change the mechanic to reflect the flavor because to me whatever you are doing represents something real.   So if it's fire it doesn't work in water etc...  oozes aren't knocked prone.  Iron golems aren't dazed or stunned.  etc.. 

That works very well with monster traits though. I do add some traits like "no you can't prone a snake" sometimes, it's just that it's monster specific (and I'm inclined to let it slide on a good enough description).
I'd rather have uniform mechanics with exceptions than extra complicated stuff I must cut down wwith a machete... 

Well, we've hijacked this thread.    But, just a note - "silly" is subjective.   You can't prone a snake make be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me - if it were on it's back, it clearly is in the snake equivalent of prone, to me.    Now, you can agree or disagree - that's exactly my point.  If you and your group can easily agree with adding "can't be prone" to monsters that make sense to you, great.  But, it seems fraught with danger.     Also, if you make sure to remove abilities when they dont make sense, it'd be worth checking how often it hoses various characters.   It's easy to fall into the trap where 90% of monsters have be romantic immunity, hosing the necromamcer.  Or, ruling against proning hosing martial chars more than spell casters.  A few rounds of balance: "no, cold only does half damage - he's a mammal with a fur coat" would avoid the appearance of favoritism.

Well, we've hijacked this thread.    But, just a note - "silly" is subjective.   You can't prone a snake make be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me - if it were on it's back, it clearly is in the snake equivalent of prone, to me.    Now, you can agree or disagree - that's exactly my point.  If you and your group can easily agree with adding "can't be prone" to monsters that make sense to you, great.  But, it seems fraught with danger.     Also, if you make sure to remove abilities when they dont make sense, it'd be worth checking how often it hoses various characters.   It's easy to fall into the trap where 90% of monsters have be romantic immunity, hosing the necromamcer.  Or, ruling against proning hosing martial chars more than spell casters.  A few rounds of balance: "no, cold only does half damage - he's a mammal with a fur coat" would avoid the appearance of favoritism.

Mar 21, 2012 -- 12:32AM, TheMormegil wrote:

Mar 20, 2012 -- 8:10PM, Emerikol wrote:

Yeah.  I'd rather just say conditions don't apply when they'd be silly.  I change the mechanic to reflect the flavor because to me whatever you are doing represents something real.   So if it's fire it doesn't work in water etc...  oozes aren't knocked prone.  Iron golems aren't dazed or stunned.  etc.. 

That works very well with monster traits though. I do add some traits like "no you can't prone a snake" sometimes, it's just that it's monster specific (and I'm inclined to let it slide on a good enough description).
I'd rather have uniform mechanics with exceptions than extra complicated stuff I must cut down with a machete... 

I am creating custom Titantoise monsters from Final Fantasy (Titanically Large Tortoises, for those not in the know).  Each has an itteration of a trait that allows them to totally resist forced movement from weapon keyword powers, and resist any other forced movement, and get an immediate save to resist prone.

I support exceptions through monster traits.

Mar 21, 2012 -- 6:23AM, MeCorva wrote:

Well, we've hijacked this thread. But, just a note - "silly" is subjective. You can't prone a snake make be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me - if it were on it's back, it clearly is in the snake equivalent of prone, to me.

Exactly my take. things like that plus the number of times the trope,  "reality is unrealistic" gets spouted unknowingly... around here, drives home why the idea of relying on DM sensibilties bothers me .

Mar 20, 2012 -- 8:10PM, Emerikol wrote:

Yeah.  I'd rather just say conditions don't apply when they'd be silly.  I change the mechanic to reflect the flavor because to me whatever you are doing represents something real.   So if it's fire it doesn't work in water etc...  oozes aren't knocked prone.  Iron golems aren't dazed or stunned.  etc...

May I respectfully suggest an alternative to changing the mechanics? Yes, water is used to quench fire - but fire is also used to boil water, so why should a player lose a game mechanic due to one interpretation of the flavor text? Similarly, golems may not be dazed or stunned the way a humanoid is, but a blast of lightning or cold can certainly be interpreted to have the same mechanical effect.

Plus, and not to sound like a broken record, but in many cases the source of the fire, lightning, or other energy is magical, and thus not completely bound by the rules of the physical world.

Mar 21, 2012 -- 12:16PM, tiballagher wrote:

May I respectfully suggest an alternative to changing the mechanics? Yes, water is used to quench fire - but fire is also used to boil water, so why should a player lose a game mechanic due to one interpretation of the flavor text? Similarly, golems may not be dazed or stunned the way a humanoid is, but a blast of lightning or cold can certainly be interpreted to have the same mechanical effect.

I've got no issue with golems having "suceptable: lighting (dazed, ignores immunity)" in addition to "immunity: daze, stun, dominate"

Adding a vulnerabilily in addition to a immunity helps keeps them balanced.

For simplicity how about a something like the keywords that we use for powers and a block for alternative options. The keyword eliminate some of the redundant text of having more effects and provide some options for dealing with corner cases.

Example (made up an effect for the examples sake):

 Spoiler: Show

I think letting the DM adjudicate is exactly the right thing to do.  Your players will learn pretty quick how you tend to rule on various spells.  To be honest until this thread I've never met someone who thought a fireball would work underwater.  Never had that questioned.  But if you prefer a let anything go DM then your problem is solved.  Find that kind of DM.

What makes pen and paper D&D great is the DM and his ability to adjudicate.  Don't let bad DMs scare you away from the awesomeness of the game when DM'd well.   

Mar 21, 2012 -- 6:24PM, Emerikol wrote:

I think letting the DM adjudicate is exactly the right thing to do.  Your players will learn pretty quick how you tend to rule on various spells.  To be honest until this thread I've never met someone who thought a fireball would work underwater.  Never had that questioned.  But if you prefer a let anything go DM then your problem is solved.  Find that kind of DM.

What makes pen and paper D&D great is the DM and his ability to adjudicate.  Don't let bad DMs scare you away from the awesomeness of the game when DM'd well.   

It just blows my mind that there are DMs who wouldn't let fireball work underwater.

Mainly because I see it as more of a bomb or torpedo concept.  It's not just the heat that will kill you, though that can do it.  The concussive force of an explosion will really do some damage, and I'd assume the magical nature of the fire lets it burn underwater like a flare.

Mar 22, 2012 -- 2:05AM, Kalnaur wrote:

 and I'd assume the magical nature of the fire lets it burn underwater like a flare.

Though I generally dont like giving "because its magic" ... as a reason to give the wizard a by (sp). The affect normal fires ritual calls out that natural fire is different. You might even think of it like the difference between weapons grade fire such as ancient "greek fire" or modern napalm vs a hasteily lit branch of wood with leaves flairing. 
 _{NOTE: The earliest fireball was described as not involving a lot of force... but I dont recall if its interaction with a body of water was enumerated since the utter lack of force element is a tad nonsensical anyway who knows.}
 
I similarly treat combat moves as special and involve not a single thing but a body of tricks like knowing jujitsu plus a bit of vulnerable strikes, intimidating threat and big dash of heroic luck which can produce a given effect.

I seem to recall somewhere rpgs were supposed to encourage one to describe and imagine how your attack looked and worked though honestly back in the day it had little or no impact on its game effect unless you could convince the dm otherwise ....  apparently some now assume the system does all that work for them and they arent allowed to imagine how it does its thing... and worse that if the dm thinks appropriate then they should take the ability away.

Mar 22, 2012 -- 3:57AM, Garthanos wrote:

 _{NOTE: The earliest fireball was described as not involving a lot of force... but I dont recall if its interaction with a body of water was enumerated since the utter lack of force element is a tad nonsensical anyway who knows.}

Just a note on this.  In 1e fireballs knocked down castle walls.  They blew doors off their hinges.  They also ignited everyone in the area of effect.  (This last part was ignored most I think).

I hear this comment made often so just a clarifier.  I believe 3e on the Fireball became far less explosive and more a burst of fire that ignited everyone. 


@Kalnaur
Technically as the spell is described in most editions, the fireball if it even went off would explode immediately in the casters face.  The fireball goes through air to it's target.  One nanometer outside the wizards finger the pebble encounters water and explodes.   Otherwise fireballs wouldn't ever work on a water creature but would rather go right through them.   I allow fireballs to work on water creature because the explosion occurs on impact and the heat surrounding the water has to do some damage.   Underwater though I'd just rule it doesn't go off.  I'm not a killer DM.

 

Mar 22, 2012 -- 6:50AM, Emerikol wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 3:57AM, Garthanos wrote:

 _{NOTE: The earliest fireball was described as not involving a lot of force... but I dont recall if its interaction with a body of water was enumerated since the utter lack of force element is a tad nonsensical anyway who knows.}

Just a note on this.  In 1e fireballs knocked down castle walls.  They blew doors off their hinges.  They also ignited everyone in the area of effect.  (This last part was ignored most I think).

I hear this comment made often so just a clarifier.  I believe 3e on the Fireball became far less explosive and more a burst of fire that ignited everyone. 
 

WoW Are you sure there wasnt a transition in there?... I specifically recall the forceless expansion from 1e era - maybe I am getting all senior about it.

@Garthenos

Here is the text from 1e...

Fireball (Evocation)
level:    3                              Components V,S
Range: 10" + 1"/level          Casting Time: 3 segments
Duration: Instantaneous     Saving Throw: 1/2
Area of Effect: 2" radius sphere

Explanation/Description: A fireball is an explosive burse of flame, which detonates with a low roar, and delivers damage proportionate to the level of the magic user who cast it, i.e 1 six-sided die (d6) for each level of experience of the spell caster.  Exception: Magic Fireball wands deliver 6 die fireballs (6d6), magic staves with this capability deliver 8 die fireballs, and scroll spells of this type deliver a fireball of from 5 to 10 dice (d6+4) of damage.  The burst of the fireball does not expend a considerable amount of pressure, and the burst will generally conform to the shape of the area in which it occurs, thus covering an area equal to it's normal spherical volume of roughly 33000 cubit feet (or yards).  Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within it's burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver,etc..  Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected.  Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered unaffected.  The magic user points his or her finger and speaks the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst.  A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body prior to attaining the proscribed range, flowers into the fireball.  If creatures fail their saving throws, they all take full hit point damage from the blast.  Those who make saving throws manage to dodge, fall flat, or roll aside, taking 1/2 the full hit point damage -- each and every one within the blast area.  The material component of this spell is a tiny ball composed of bat guano and sulfur.


@theMormegil
You will note that if you just look at the stat block and not the description the spell is entirely reflavorable.   You will find this to be true for most spells in 1e.   So if the reflavorers were willing to ignore the explanation/description part (save the damage which I would favor putting on the stat block) they should be happy I'd think.


Update:
I did notice that the structural damage of the fireball in 1e only listed wood structures.  So while explosive it was not knocking down castle walls.  I'm guessing maybe that was 2e or later.

Here it is... the following

"The burst of the fireball does not expend a considerable amount of pressure, and the burst will generally conform to the shape of the area in which it occurs, thus covering an area equal to it's normal spherical volume of roughly 33000 cubit feet (or yards)."

Low pressure expansion would not be the source of damage... inspite of callig it an explosion it would work poorly against the castle walls you mentioned. Aside from cleaning things you dont want off them

Now I will sketch the area and note how the cieling is slope and spherical on one side and filled with stallagtites.. compute where it expands to please and be sure and show your work.

@Garthanos
Well I don't think anyone was arguing about the explosive pressure.  I was talking about damage upon impact that is not just fire burning you.  I think it does do something there.  I do agree though that practically the way they described it that the effect on stone is negligible.  I mean there might be a crack or some crumbling but it wouldn't amount to enough to mean anything.

The DMG guide though did indicate that a wooden door wouldn't survive.  A structural point is a lot of damage.   So it may not blow down the whole side of a wooden fort's wall but it will probably blow open an average wooden door.  It would only do so if the spell "impacted" on the door though not if the door was just in the area effect.




 

I dont think they actually mention increased point of impact damage which would make it more of an explosion. A fireball in Fantasy hero could be built where every hex away from POI it lost a die of damage.

A gun firing in to water gets deflected and a lot of its momentum dispersed but one under water already is less deflected and lacks that initial surface reflective impact and... playing the physics game a DM could allow it to fire off under water but give it less range.

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:08AM, Emerikol wrote:

@theMormegil
You will note that if you just look at the stat block and not the description the spell is entirely reflavorable.   You will find this to be true for most spells in 1e.   So if the reflavorers were willing to ignore the explanation/description part (save the damage which I would favor putting on the stat block) they should be happy I'd think.

That's roughly the idea I had back in the Keep Reflavoring Alive thread. Not having played 1e I didn't know it had a good base for this. Good to know.  

Mar 22, 2012 -- 9:05AM, TheMormegil wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:08AM, Emerikol wrote:

@theMormegil
You will note that if you just look at the stat block and not the description the spell is entirely reflavorable.   You will find this to be true for most spells in 1e.   So if the reflavorers were willing to ignore the explanation/description part (save the damage which I would favor putting on the stat block) they should be happy I'd think.

That's roughly the idea I had back in the Keep Reflavoring Alive thread. Not having played 1e I didn't know it had a good base for this. Good to know.  

I do think a big mistake people make is lumping 3e in with 1e and 2e.  Each edition was different.  1e/2e though were a lot different than 3e.    3e was a reaction to 1e/2e in a way.  Clerics for example were far less powerful in 1e/2e than in 3e.  Wizards were too for that matter EXCEPT that a few of the spells were seriously broken if you knew how to work them.  Most DMs houseruled them.

So don't let the "old school" feel movement scare you too much.  Old School is not 3e.  Also I think when it comes to reflavoring that few people are completely against it in all it's forms.  It is just a matter of how much.  I'm for a simple stat block that you can use exclusively followed by an explantion/description like the 1e fireball (although even I want it a bit simpler :-)).  

I like energy types being flavorful so that fire catches you on fire and cold slows you down.  A 4e concept I believe.  I hope the build system gives and a point value for those things so that switching them out to make something different is easy.   A good build system will go a long way theMormegil to giving you the flexibility that you want.  I want the system too.  I may want it for other reasons but I want it.   So hopefully the designers are listening -- GIVE US THE SECRET SAUCE FORMULA(s)  


 

Mar 17, 2012 -- 11:24AM, Facet wrote:

 Encounter powers weren't so much an issue except that some players questioned their execution. "Come and get it" If you were flying 10' off the ground and flew over a group and executed the power.....how did they get sucked up into the air....you get an attack on each hovering guy, then they fall on their own accord so you get another attack for them retreating from your square then they fall prone upon hitting the ground for even more damage.

Sorry for going back so far, I didn't see anyone else mention this.

At no time was this description of Come and Get It a legal possibility within the rules. Originally forced movement did not work vertically at all, meaning you not only couldn't pull people up into the air, you also couldn't pull fliers down, or even pull someone up a flight of stairs.

Eventually they fixed this, but the updated rule is that you can basically only force move them vertically in ways they could normally move: swimmers can be pulled vertically in a liquid, flyers in the air, climbers up/down a surface they can climb, and walkers up/down ramps or stairs they could normally traverse. So for your Come and Get It example, it would be able to suck up some flying creatures that were at ground level, who would then continue to fly in their new location. But non-flyers would simply be uneffected.

See? Sometimes the mechanics are right, and silly things really don't work        

I haven't read all 15 pages, so maybe this has already been discussed:
A big part of what made AEDU valuable was that it gave each classes equivalent things that could be traded for one another, making for what ultimately became my favorite multiclass system to date. (The full system, including both hybrid and feat-based. Leaving out one or the other makes it inadequate, IMO.)
You may notice that the Essentials subclasses kind of screw with multiclass in unfortunate ways, the Slayer being the ultimate offender (unable to hybrid, can't be multiclassed into, badly restricted for multiclassing out).
The number one big thing I want from AEDU to make it to DDN is for classes to have features of some kind that come in at the same level and can be exchanged in some form of multiclassing to make a unique blend of two or more classes. If this means that at level 3 one class gets an encounter power, one gets a daily, and another gets a static bonus, but they're all level 3 features and you could potentially swap one for the other, fine. That also opens up easy room for expansion books to give alternative features for each of those classes to take instead at that level.
I don't want to go back to 3e style multiclassing, where at any level you could take the 1st level of any new class, so say a 16th level Fighter could chose between Fighter 17 or Wizard 1 as his next level, even though Wizard 1 is pretty irrelevant at that point. Your 17th level should give you an increase in power appropriate to a 17th level.    

Mar 22, 2012 -- 6:50AM, Emerikol wrote:

@Kalnaur
Technically as the spell is described in most editions, the fireball if it even went off would explode immediately in the casters face.  The fireball goes through air to it's target.  One nanometer outside the wizards finger the pebble encounters water and explodes.   Otherwise fireballs wouldn't ever work on a water creature but would rather go right through them.   I allow fireballs to work on water creature because the explosion occurs on impact and the heat surrounding the water has to do some damage.   Underwater though I'd just rule it doesn't go off.  I'm not a killer DM.

I assume the creature made of living water is different from water itself.  That would be my ruling, of course, and is not universal.

Perhaps it was looking for universal rulings that led to 4th ed powers?

Another from the FWIW Department:

OD&D (or even 1e) spells like Fireball and Lightening Bolt were origianlly designed for table top Battles (hence the feet or yards in the AoE).  The Dungeons came later.