D&D 4E Let's Talk About 4E On Its Own Terms [+]

[FrogReaver]

i probably wouldn't even have made this reply if it weren't for the last two statements i'm going to respond to here, but here goes...

...why not? like, do you have a reason? i'd be interested to hear it.

Yes I have a reason, but I’d really rather this dead horse stop being beaten.

i'm directly quoting the text. what are you even disagreeing with?

The parts of your comment that weren’t a direct quote of the text.

because we made our posts before that example was posted? i mean, the post you're replying to here was literally the first post in this thread after you disagreed with the examples in question. hell, i replied to that example before you ever agreed with it (to point out it looked like a double image post).

My stance wasn’t that there weren’t any examples though, just that this one example wasn’t a good one, along with the general thought that people quote alot of examples that fall really short of proving their point.

The point is - the particular example really doesn’t matter to the discussion and really never has. So can we move on from it?

first off, if (generic) you say something that's just flat out wrong, i don't know why it'd be a bad thing to correct you on it.

I didn’t say anything flat out wrong.

you said the savage ability was magical or supernatural. i pointed out that the text outright states it's neither.

It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s supernatural. Who is outright saying something outright wrong now?

i guess if you were running a game where someone had that ability you could rule it as one or the other if you really wanted to, but then you'd be going against the text. i also didn't imply you viewing the samurai/ronin ability as magical was "absurd". i said i thought it was a stretch, and explained why. that's not the same thing - i was disagreeing with you.

Tom-ato, To-ma-to

second, you JUST accused me of "beating [a dead] horse" because of a post that hadn't been made at the time of my post. how are you going to criticize other people for bad behaviour when you are, at best, making accusations without taking the most basic steps to check if they even make sense?

Not trying to offend you but you do realize you are still trying to talk about this same thing that’s been discussed to death and doesn’t actually have any bearing on anything actually relevant to the actual conversation - aka beating a dead horse.

Anyways, have the last word. I’m moving on.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Yes I have a reason, but I’d really rather this dead horse stop being beaten.

i mean...ok then, i guess. i'd still like to hear it, even if it's as a PM, but if you don't wanna talk about it then that's fine.

The parts of your comment that weren’t a direct quote of the text.

considering that my conclusion was derived from the text i was directly quoting i still don't really understand, but whatever, i guess.

My stance wasn’t that there weren’t any examples though, just that this one example wasn’t a good one, along with the general thought that people quote alot of examples that fall really short of proving their point.

and i was arguing against your reasoning as to why the examples provided weren't good ones, which was relevant at the time because the other example hadn't come along.

also, i never said you said there "weren't any examples". i don't even know why you'd think i meant that. i said the example that you say made my post redundant hadn't been posted yet, which it hadn't.

The point is - the particular example really doesn’t matter to the discussion and really never has. So can we move on from it?

i'd argue it did and it did, but sure. in fact, i only really mentioned the original examples again because i was replying to you anyway and figured i might as well.

I didn’t say anything flat out wrong.

you considered an ability that outright says it's a natural ability to not be one. i don't know what you can call that other then wrong.

It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s supernatural. Who is outright saying something outright wrong now?

once again, it literally explicitly states the ability is "natural to the Savage". that is a direct quote from the text. a natural ability is, by definition, not supernatural.

Tom-ato, To-ma-to

uh...about which statement? because if about the former, then no, because how you rule something and what the thing actually is can be (and in this case would be) different things. if about the latter, then no, because disagreeing with someone is not the same as calling their viewpoint absurd.

Not trying to offend you but you do realize you are still trying to talk about this same thing that’s been discussed to death and doesn’t actually have any bearing on anything actually relevant to the actual conversation - aka beating a dead horse.

i'm talking about it because you accused me of something i could not possibly have been doing, and if you had just checked the post order beforehand you would have known that. again, i discussed the examples again because i was replying to you anyway and figured i might as well. i assume, since you're discussing the examples again as well, that you thought the same way. despite that, i can recognize that the discussion of those examples isn't your actual point (though i still responded to those parts since, for the third time, i might as well).

so here's my actual point - if you're going to accuse someone of doing something, then, at the very least, check if it was even possible for them to have done what you are accusing them of in the first place. it is the most basic courtesy you could possibly afford.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Retreater

I’m still trying to figure out why your group struggles so much against 4 mostly equal foes.

Just curious, if the party is level 3, what level are the 4 foes?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not what’s happening here. But thanks for the continued mockery.

There's no mockery here. The fact that you cannot even recognize logic when it stares you in the face simply is what it is. It is impossible for actual mundane humans, even if we grant them the levels of skill of a Miyamoto Musashi or whatever, to fight things with elephantine and greater strength. Where is the mockery here? D&D allows for this, so it is IPSO FACTO, no mockery, just logic, portraying a fantastical situation which is beyond the realm of natural law! This is EXACTLY what is happening here!

I defended them against the most recent poster on the thread complaining about them.

What I’m pushing back against hasn’t been that, it’s been the implications that those that disagree with you (general you) either are hypocrites, dumb, posting in bad faith, etc. if those comments stopped then this thread would happily be humming along talking about 4e on its own terms.

I've never insulted anyone in any of the ways you are stating. I simply applied logic to the statements made and a basic analysis of natural laws to draw a pretty much incontrovertible conclusion that, indeed, D&D fighters operate at a level that can only be interpreted as fantastical. You stubbornly replied with, basically, Naaaah! Ain't so! I mean, again, if you want to rhetorically redefine the word 'magical' to make your argument work, that's great, but it won't change anything.

Lets put it this way. Regardless of any other editions of D&D, 4e literally states flat out that Martial Power is "stand(s) well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals." I don't think it is unreasonable, and PHB1 P54 supports this, that martial exploits are not spell casting, but it does call Martial a 'power source'. Frankly it strikes me as being very much in keeping with notions of things like Ki (which at one point was considered as a possible separate power source, but was dropped). 4e pointedly doesn't define the term 'magic' and famously it is perfectly possible for the Arcana skill to detect effects created using Martial exploits (though there are rather few exploits that are conjurations or zones). Honestly, with 4e, the whole argument about what is or is not 'magic' is pretty fraught! Even the Detect Magic function of Arcana doesn't actually try to define the term.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It is impossible for actual mundane humans, even if we grant them the levels of skill of a Miyamoto Musashi or whatever, to fight things with elephantine and greater strength.

ok, i know you mean in melee, but you know i gotta counterpoint with elephant guns, if only for a chuckle.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

ok, i know you mean in melee, but you know i gotta counterpoint with elephant guns, if only for a chuckle.

Yeah, I think I pointed out "modern weapons excepted" in a previous post. Obviously if you have a 500 nitro express and you're 100 meters away, well, you better HIT that sucker, but you can definitely do it, no problem. I mean, a very desperate human with a spear MIGHT kill an elephant too, by sheer luck one in a 100 times or something (plunge it into the beasts eye or something) but obviously that's not what D&D is talking about.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Yo, peeps!

This is a [+] thread regarding 4Ed D&D. Let’s keep it plussy & 4Eddy. Thanks.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's no mockery here. The fact that you cannot even recognize logic when it stares you in the face simply is what it is.

Oh the irony…

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh the irony…

Mod Note:

Dude! Right after my post?

 

[Retreater]

@Retreater

I’m still trying to figure out why your group struggles so much against 4 mostly equal foes.

Just curious, if the party is level 3, what level are the 4 foes?

Mostly at-level (2-3). But it's an issue where the controller can't zap them effectively, there's no defender to take the hits, the leaders unable to deal competitive damage, etc. So the combats get scary. But it's not all bad because the players feel challenged. I just feel like they're burning through resources quickly - and at the end of battles they've exhausted every healing power.