Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

- Clerics have Divine Domains
- Fighters have Fighting Style and Martial Archetypes
- Rogues have Rougish Archetypes
- Wizards have Arcane Traditions

I'm sorry, are you confusing the 2E's "Alternate Class Kit" as a 4E thing? None of which are even in the basic book because they selected one thing from each?

But I will say that 5E is chock full of elements from 4E. Again, I am not saying that makes it equivalent to 4E. But 4E is probably the single most influential edition in terms of sheer number of mechanics adopted/expanded.

Considering you don't seem to actually understand what elements came from 4E, I'm finding this not surprising that you see things.

5E's hit dice,

Not an equivalent to Health Surges, and have an entirely different use, heck even if it was they didn't even keep the 4E name.

death saves, weapon proficiencies, skill system class archetypes, ritual spells, saving throws, inspiration, and likely other stuff that I just can't think of off the top of my head came from 4E innovations. 5E owes a great deal to 4E.

My god you are serious. Weapon prof comes from 3, death saves are just renamed saves from 2E, skill system class archetypes is 2E, saving throws have been in since 1st! Inspiration had another name and are just basic rerolls.

 streamdragon wrote:
So because swordsmen basically fly in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, you're okay with my fighter doing that? I mean, going through any amount of swordsman action media can generate some ridiculous powers. Like Zoro cutting through steel in One Piece, or all sorts of anime series where people cut through buildings and crap.

 Manchu wrote:
If we're playing Basic and I am DMing, you don't need permission from me to try anything. This is not because there is a rule for everything but because you getting to try whatever we agree makes reasonable sense given the setting is the fundamental premise of the game. My role as the DM is to figure out what is the most reasonable way to test whether your attempt is successful and then to narrate the consequences.

 streamdragon wrote:
And I'd also say that there are plenty of movies showcasing the power of wizards. Surely you're also, then, okay with limiting wizards to an arbitrary set of powers that Hollywood thinks fits them?

 Manchu wrote:
Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.

 streamdragon wrote:
Even if, as I assume, you mean "the laws of nature in the game setting which let dragons fly", then arbitrarily deciding that those rules don't allow a swordsman to do the same ridiculous stuff that a wizard can (or at least their own version of ridiculous stuff) is beyond assinine.

"Non-casters can cast spells" does not follow from "dragons can fly."

You can creatively describe using your at-will powers in 4E just like you can make explosion noises when your queen takes a pawn. None of this changes that 4E (and chess) are permissive rule sets while something like B/X is not.

You can creatively describe using your at-will powers in 4E just like you can make explosion noises when your queen takes a pawn. None of this changes that 4E (and chess) are permissive rule sets while something like B/X is not.

Considering that there was no rule change between them that said either is permissive or otherwise.. And there's that insulting chess metaphor again.

Generally, as said that would mean the fighter would have nothing to show for itself in non 4E, it'll vary so hard from DM to DM, you may have awesome mcoolkid as your DM and he'll let you suddenly swing cutting winds for 3X your damage or you'll have the dude who will give you a slightly higher DC for maybe +2 damage if you land on them from atop a chandelier.

It's poor writing, it's poor decisions, and generally it doesn't help a class at all, to put it bluntly, it's bad rules to make something mechanical and leave it as a position of strength vs imagination.

 Manchu wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
So because swordsmen basically fly in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, you're okay with my fighter doing that? I mean, going through any amount of swordsman action media can generate some ridiculous powers. Like Zoro cutting through steel in One Piece, or all sorts of anime series where people cut through buildings and crap.

 Manchu wrote:
If we're playing Basic and I am DMing, you don't need permission from me to try anything. This is not because there is a rule for everything but because you getting to try whatever we agree makes reasonable sense given the setting is the fundamental premise of the game. My role as the DM is to figure out what is the most reasonable way to test whether your attempt is successful and then to narrate the consequences.

 streamdragon wrote:
And I'd also say that there are plenty of movies showcasing the power of wizards. Surely you're also, then, okay with limiting wizards to an arbitrary set of powers that Hollywood thinks fits them?

 Manchu wrote:
Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.

 streamdragon wrote:
Even if, as I assume, you mean "the laws of nature in the game setting which let dragons fly", then arbitrarily deciding that those rules don't allow a swordsman to do the same ridiculous stuff that a wizard can (or at least their own version of ridiculous stuff) is beyond assinine.

"Non-casters can cast spells" does not follow from "dragons can fly."

You can creatively describe using your at-will powers in 4E just like you can make explosion noises when your queen takes a pawn. None of this changes that 4E (and chess) are permissive rule sets while something like B/X is not.

1. Again, what prevents the fighter from doing things that break the laws of nature, other than "because Hollywood told us"? Nothing, except this innate sense that fighters should not be doing special things while wizards and casters should.

2.

 streamdragon wrote:
Even if, as I assume, you mean "the laws of nature in the game setting which let dragons fly", then arbitrarily deciding that those rules don't allow a swordsman to do the same ridiculous stuff that a wizard can (or at least their own version of ridiculous stuff) is beyond assinine.

3. Again, nothing in 4e says that "I attack" has to be just that. Nothing, including the Basic Attack power card, says that you can't describe, narrate, and let the GM rule. Nothing.

nomotog wrote:When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players? I mean I guess it can appeal to some in the same way people can like cats and the color red, but it was very clear from the very start of 5ed that 4ed was going to be treated as a mistake.

nomotog wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I didn't see that press release...

You know, there very well may have been a press release somewhere. They did a lot of talks about different things from small to large.

Manchu wrote:It was not obvious to nomotog, given he asked.

I didn't see nomotog ask actually and you can see that it was in response to him saying it was a mistake.

 pretre wrote:

nomotog wrote:When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players?

I didn't see nomotog ask actually

But you just quoted it:

nomotog wrote:When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
are you confusing the 2E's "Alternate Class Kit" as a 4E thing?

No.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Not an equivalent to Health Surges, and have an entirely different use, heck even if it was they didn't even keep the 4E name.

First,

 Manchu wrote:
Again, I am not saying that makes it equivalent to 4E.

Second,

 Manchu wrote:
But 4E is probably the single most influential edition in terms of sheer number of mechanics adopted/expanded.

'Mechanics are not exactly the same/don't have the same names' boils down to trashing 5E for not being 4E.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
saving throws have been in since 1st!

Longer even! Saving throws have appeared in every edition under one guise or another. From the classic Big Five to 3E's Ref/Fort/Will, the mechanic has dramatically changed over the years. As you know, 4E reconstructed the Ref/Fort/Will saves into Defenses. This left saves as a dissociated d20 roll against a set DC. 5E took that disassociated roll and combined it with its Proficiency + Ability Mod mechanic, which was also influenced by 4E mechanics.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Considering that there was no rule change between them that said either is permissive or otherwise.

How do you know what your character can do in 4E?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
And there's that insulting chess metaphor again.

Please explain why it is insulting, especially after I have explained that the metaphor is meant to show that 4E (a) is a permissive rule set that (b) aspires to clarity and balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@steamdragon:

(1) Magic breaks the laws of nature. Non-casters do not use magic. Non-casters cannot break the laws of nature.

(2) As I mentioned, when I run Basic, someone playing a Fighter can attempt anything that is reasonable given the setting. For example, let's say you are playing a Fighter trying to sneak out of a prison. I tell you that you make it out of your cell but you can see a guard at the end of the hallway. He has his back to you. You tell me you want to sneak up on him and cut his throat with the knife he left on a nearby table. I ask for a DEX check to see if you can approach without being heard. You roll under your DEX but just barely. I make the ruling that you snuck up on him without a problem but he noticed your blade under his chin in just enough time to grab your wrist. Now I ask you to roll an opposed STR test against him. You roll very high and he only gets a low number even with his modifier. I narrate that you plunge the dagger into his throat, spray blood all over the walls (and get a good amount on yourself!) while the guard shudders and goes limp. You didn't need a class skill for Move Silently, you didn't need a Sneak Attack or some kind of 'Assassinate' class ability, you didn't even need to make and attack roll or roll damage. Yes, whether you like this style or not, this is how many people play D&D and some have done for 30 years.

(3) Sure, we agree. Again, 4E is still permissive which is not true of every edition.

 Manchu wrote:
How do you know what your character can do in 4E?

Page 6 - 4th Ed PH. wrote:
The DM makes D&D infi-nitely f lexible—he or she can react to any situation, any twist or turn suggested by the players, to make a D&D adventure vibrant, exciting, and unexpected.

It’s a storytelling game where the only limit is your imagination.

In an adventure, you can attempt anything you can think of. Want to talk to the dragon instead of fighting it? Want to disguise yourself as an orc and sneak into the foul lair? Go ahead and give it a try. Your actions might work or they might fail spectacularly, but either way you’ve contributed to the unfolding story of the adventure and probably had fun along the way.

Page 286 - 4th Ed PH wrote:
The list isn’t exhaustive—you can try to do anything you can imagine your character doing in the game world. The rules in this section cover the most common
actions, and they can serve as a guide for figuring out what happens when you try something not in the rules.

So again. Where is that lost freedom?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

(2) As I mentioned, when I run Basic, someone playing a Fighter can attempt anything that is reasonable given the setting. For example, let's say you are playing a Fighter trying to sneak out of a prison. I tell you that you make it out of your cell but you can see a guard at the end of the hallway. He has his back to you. You tell me you want to sneak up on him and cut his throat with the knife he left on a nearby table. I ask for a DEX check to see if you can approach without being heard. You roll under your DEX but just barely. I make the ruling that you snuck up on him without a problem but he noticed your blade under his chin in just enough time to grab your wrist. Now I ask you to roll an opposed STR test against him. You roll very high and he only gets a low number even with his modifier. I narrate that you plunge the dagger into his throat, spray blood all over the walls (and get a good amount on yourself!) while the guard shudders and goes limp. You didn't need a class skill for Move Silently, you didn't need a Sneak Attack or some kind of 'Assassinate' class ability, you didn't even need to make and attack roll or roll damage. Yes, whether you like this style or not, this is how many people play D&D and some have done for 30 years.

This works perfectly well in 4th ed.

Your fighter sneaks up behind the guard. Do you have stealth? Nope. No problem, you just don't get the +5 bonus for being trained (page 178). I tell you to roll an opposed skill check with the guard's perception (Page 178). You match his. I narrate that this means you get up behind him but he notices the blade and grabs it. I advise you to make an 'escape' attempt (page 288) to get your blade free (contested Athletics vs his Fortitude). You roll high and beat him. You plunge the blade into his chest. The guard shudders and goes limp.You didn't need a class skill for Move Silently, you didn't need a Sneak Attack or some kind of 'Assassinate' class ability, you didn't even need to make and attack roll or roll damage. Yes, whether you like this style or not, this is how I play D&D and have done for 28 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Page 42, 4th Ed DMG wrote:
Actions the Rules Don’t Cover
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.

A whole section on helping you to figure out how to handle things not covered by the rules. Huh. That's wacky.

Say I am playing a first level Rogue in 4E. The party is fighting some goblins and it is my initiative. The DM asks what I do. I say I do Three Tiger Kick. The DM replies, no you may not do Three Tiger Kick because that is a X-level Encounter Power for Class Y. I say, okay, well I want to kick him in the face three times and I want my foot to glow with heavenly light and do radiant damage. The DM replies, no you can't do that because that is too many actions and oh by the way what rule allows your feet to emit radiant damage. Okay, I say, I just want to kick him in the face three times. The DM says, no, you are not allowed to do that because, absent permission from the rules to the contrary, an attack is a standard action and you only get one of those so three kicks is two too many.

Now -- as I have said many times -- there is nothing bad or wrong about this. It's a permissive rule set with, and I really like Buzzsaw's term here, an "escape hatch" of interpretive rulings in case a player wants to do something about which the rules are effectively silent. But it is not the only way to play D&D.

So let's say we are playing Basic. You are a Cleric. The party is fighting some goblins and it's your turn so I ask you what you want to do. You tell me that you want to to do Three Tiger Kick. I would ask you what that is. You tell me it is when you take a running jump and kick somebody in the face three times. I ask you where you learned how to do this. Maybe you tell me your Fighter studied with some monks as a kid. Or maybe you tell me it's just something he heard about in stories about monks. Giving me background information and a detailed description about what you are attempting informs my ruling about the test you need to succeed and what the consequences will be. Or, if I was bad DM, I would just say "no you can't do that."

 Manchu wrote:
Say I am playing a first level Rogue in 4E. ...The DM says, no, you are not allowed to do that because, absent permission from the rules to the contrary, an attack is a standard action and you only get one of those so three kicks is two too many.

Then you have a bad DM who isn't following the rules as written in the 4th ed PH and DMG.

Page 42 of the DMG:
"Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes
D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the
players to try anything they can imagine. That means
it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the play-
ers try them."
"Attacks: If the action is essentially an attack, use an
attack roll. It might involve a weapon and target AC, or
it might just be a Strength or Dexterity check against
any defense. For an attack, use the appropriate defense
of the target. Use an opposed check for anything that
involves a contest between two creatures."

 pretre wrote:
This works perfectly well in 4th ed.

Yep, what you just wrote is almost how I used to run 4E. But what if one of the players objects to the ruling about not needing an attack or damage roll to slit the throat? They have good grounds to do so: the rules already cover how you attack someone and how much damage that can do. The Rogue might object, for example, on grounds that the Fighter is trespassing in Rogue territory there (class imbalance).

I can imagine another good reason to object to this as well, one which Buzzsaw brought up earlier, when he said that my DM had either not really thought through the opposed DEX checks or wouldn't allow us PCs to try it, ostensibly because it was too powerful, broken, etc. What if the guard snuck up on my PC? Could he just kill my PC based on a couple of non-combat. non-damage rolls?

My response would be -- no, of course not, the story is about the PCs. Guards are just dungeon furniture. Heck, let's say the Guard was a "minion" to use the 4E term; he only had 1HP so no worries, right? Of course, that's a post hoc rationalization but nevermind. None of these excuses/explanations are going to cut the mustard with someone who wants to play the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E because rulings, that is calls that depart from using the rules as written, undermine the clarity and balance of the game's design.

A good DM would say 'Okay, three dragon kick, that sounds like a Dexterity type attack because you are deftly striking three times to hurt your opponent. Make a dex attack without proficiency bonus for your weapon against the target's AC"

 pretre wrote:
Then you have a bad DM who isn't following the rules as written in the 4th ed PH and DMG.

Great example of permissive rule set logic: a bad DM is one who does not follow the rules as written.

 pretre wrote:
A good DM would say 'Okay, three dragon kick, that sounds like a Dexterity type attack because you are deftly striking three times to hurt your opponent. Make a dex attack without proficiency bonus for your weapon against the target's AC"

Sounds good to me. Like I keep saying, I like rulings. I also realize that rulings aren't for everyone.

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
This works perfectly well in 4th ed.

Yep, what you just wrote is almost how I used to run 4E. But what if one of the players objects to the ruling about not needing an attack or damage roll to slit the throat? They have good grounds to do so: the rules already cover how you attack someone and how much damage that can do. The Rogue might object, for example, on grounds that the Fighter is trespassing in Rogue territory there.

We can play the what if game all day. What if one of your Basic players objects to how you rule on something?

I can imagine another good reason to object to this as well, one which Buzzsaw brought up earlier, when he said that my DM had either not really thought through the opposed DEX checks or wouldn't allow us PCs to try it, ostensibly because it was too powerful, broken, etc. What if the guard snuck up on my PC? Could he just kill my PC based on a couple of non-combat. non-damage rolls?

That same problem exists in Basic as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

My response would be -- no, of course not, the story is about the PCs. Guards are just dungeon furniture. Heck, let's say the Guard was a "minion" to use the 4E term; he only had 1HP so no worries, right? Of course, that's a post hoc rationalization but nevermind. None of these excuses/explanations are going to cut the mustard with someone who wants to play the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E because rulings, that is calls that depart from using the rules, undermines the clarity and balance of the game's design.

Rulings are built into 4th Ed. I provided you the quotes from the book. Are you missing that the book actively provides you with the ability to rule on any action the players want to perform? Where in Basic D&D is the quote for allowing that? Or are you just assuming because there is no permission that permission is given?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Then you have a bad DM who isn't following the rules as written in the 4th ed PH and DMG.

Great example of permissive rule set logic: a bad DM is one who does not follow the rules as written.

 pretre wrote:
A good DM would say 'Okay, three dragon kick, that sounds like a Dexterity type attack because you are deftly striking three times to hurt your opponent. Make a dex attack without proficiency bonus for your weapon against the target's AC"

Sounds good to me. Like I keep saying, I like rulings. I also realize that rulings aren't for everyone.

Except you've been saying that D&D 4th Ed doesn't allow rulings. It is clear from the rules that it does. My example used the DMG's sample for how to make a ruling on something not covered by the rules. It tells DMs that that is their job. To make rulings for things not covered by the rules. So you are wrong about 4th ed not allowing this or being, in any way, more 'ruling friendly' than Basic. I bet Basic has nothing covering rulings. I'll have to dig up a book though.

 pretre wrote:
What if one of your Basic players objects to how you rule on something?

If I don't think it can be resolved fairly quickly, I would let her know that I will hear her out after the session is finished.

 pretre wrote:

I can imagine another good reason to object to this as well, one which Buzzsaw brought up earlier, when he said that my DM had either not really thought through the opposed DEX checks or wouldn't allow us PCs to try it, ostensibly because it was too powerful, broken, etc. What if the guard snuck up on my PC? Could he just kill my PC based on a couple of non-combat. non-damage rolls?

That same problem exists in Basic as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I disagree because rulings are not the same as rules. Rulings are case-by-case whereas rules apply more universally. The issue is, someone playing 4E could object that a ruling is unnecessary and harmful in a case when a rule already covers it. That's a perfectly valid objection regarding 3E or 4E. It cannot be a valid objection in Basic because Basic simply doesn't have a huge set of permissive rules covering tons and tons of situations and even the rules it does have (for example, the saving throws) require interpretation by the DM to be used in all but the most narrow circumstances.

 Manchu wrote:
Say I am playing a first level Rogue in 4E. The party is fighting some goblins and it is my initiative. The DM asks what I do. I say I do Three Tiger Kick. The DM replies, no you may not do Three Tiger Kick because that is a X-level Encounter Power for Class Y. I say, okay, well I want to kick him in the face three times and I want my foot to glow with heavenly light and do radiant damage. The DM replies, no you can't do that because that is too many actions and oh by the way what rule allows your feet to emit radiant damage. Okay, I say, I just want to kick him in the face three times. The DM says, no, you are not allowed to do that because, absent permission from the rules to the contrary, an attack is a standard action and you only get one of those so three kicks is two too many.

Now -- as I have said many times -- there is nothing bad or wrong about this. It's a permissive rule set with, and I really like Buzzsaw's term here, an "escape hatch" of interpretive rulings in case a player wants to do something about which the rules are effectively silent. But it is not the only way to play D&D.

So let's say we are playing Basic. You are a Cleric. The party is fighting some goblins and it's your turn so I ask you what you want to do. You tell me that you want to to do Three Tiger Kick. I would ask you what that is. You tell me it is when you take a running jump and kick somebody in the face three times. I ask you where you learned how to do this. Maybe you tell me your Fighter studied with some monks as a kid. Or maybe you tell me it's just something he heard about in stories about monks. Giving me background information and a detailed description about what you are attempting informs my ruling about the test you need to succeed and what the consequences will be. Or, if I was bad DM, I would just say "no you can't do that."

I find it strange that you go into the background stuff for your Basic version of the game, but not the 4e version.

Assuming you use the same backstory for your Rogue as your Cleric, I could easily rule as follows:

You want to kick the goblin in the face 3 times. I can see that an unarmed attack would normally do d4 damage, and a basic attack can be done unarmed. While the X level (insert class here) with the actual Three Tiger Kick power would be doing X[W] (where x is likely at least 3), you do not have that power. Instead, you would do a basic attack and to simulate three kicks instead of one, I would bump your damage up to d8 and let you use DEX (you are a rogue, after all, and this seems like a fairly agile move!) for your To-Hit and Damage rolls. So there you have it. 4e Three Tiger Kick as performed by a rogue.

There is also the "rebranding" version of this. "Spinning Blade Leap" lets you move and attack, which easily fits the narrative of jump kicking someone three times in the face! You use your power, we both agree that instead of "You leap into the air, leanding atop your foe. You stab down and leap off." that you "Leap into the air, delivering one, two kicks to your foe's face. As you leap away, you deliver a third and final kick straight to their chin."


There you have it. 2 different ways to pull a Three Tiger Kick in 4e.

 pretre wrote:
Except you've been saying that D&D 4th Ed doesn't allow rulings.

No, I haven't. What I have said is that 4E is a permissive rule set. It has rules for almost everything. The purpose of doing that was to foster clarity and balance. Objecting to rulings that diverge from rules is perfectly valid. In 4E, a player can say to the DM "no you are not allowed to do that."

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
What if one of your Basic players objects to how you rule on something?

If I don't think it can be resolved fairly quickly, I would let her know that I will hear her out after the session is finished.

So, exactly like a 4th ed DM would handle it.

disagree because rulings are not the same as rules. Rulings are case-by-case whereas rules apply more universally. The issue is, someone playing 4E could object that a ruling is unnecessary and harmful in a case when a rule already covers it. That's a perfectly valid objection regarding 3E or 4E. It cannot be a valid objection in Basic because Basic simply doesn't have a huge set of permissive rules covering tons and tons of situations and even the rules it does have (for example, the saving throws) require interpretation by the DM to be used in all but the most narrow circumstances.

Someone in basic could rule that something is unnecessary and harmful because there are no rules for it. So, where is the permission to go outside of the existing rules in Basic. Page and quote please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Except you've been saying that D&D 4th Ed doesn't allow rulings.

No, I haven't. What I have said is that 4E is a permissive rule set. It has rules for almost everything. The purpose of doing that was to foster clarity and balance. Objecting to rulings that diverge from rules is perfectly valid. In 4E, a player can say to the DM "no you are not allowed to do that."

And they would be wrong. I have already quoted you where they are explicitly allowed to do that and anything else to interpret the rules and make rulings. Why are you ignoring that?

 pretre wrote:
So, exactly like a 4th ed DM would handle it.

Sorry do you think we having an argument on this point? I think the proper argument we have is whether the player can say that the DM is not allowed to do something. I absolutely think the player can object. If the DM 'cheats' or otherwise disregards the rules in 4E, then the "beautiful tactical combat" is gone. If the reason someone plays 4E is for the "beautiful tactical combat" then it makes sense that they would assume no 'cheating' is allowed. See Buzzsaw's strong objection to the how my DM played the goblin in 5E.

 pretre wrote:
So, where is the permission to go outside of the existing rules in Basic. Page and quote please.

The request is amusingly paradoxical considering Basic is not a permissive rule set.

Please explain why it is insulting, especially after I have explained that the metaphor is meant to show that 4E (a) is a permissive rule set that (b) aspires to clarity and balance.

First because as Petre has been showing you, it's not a permissive, it has exactly the same rules when it comes down to it as 3E and earlier, you've been trying to deny it despite him easily quoting you rules otherwise.

Second: It's a VERY common insult towards 4E by saying it's not DnD at all and more relatable to other things, wargames, chess, etc.

The request is amusingly paradoxical considering Basic is not a permissive rule set.

Then where's the ruling for 4E's permissive rule set?

 pretre wrote:
So, where is the permission to go outside of the existing rules in Basic. Page and quote please.

The request is amusingly paradoxical considering Basic is not a permissive rule set.

And where is that defined?

 streamdragon wrote:
"Spinning Blade Leap" lets you move and attack

There's the permissive rule set.

 streamdragon wrote:
While the X level (insert class here) with the actual Three Tiger Kick power would be doing X[W] (where x is likely at least 3), you do not have that power. Instead, you would do a basic attack and to simulate three kicks instead of one, I would bump your damage up to d8 and let you use DEX (you are a rogue, after all, and this seems like a fairly agile move!) for your To-Hit and Damage rolls.

I think this is an awesome homebrew martial power. Is it At Will or Encounter? And don't I have to level to get new powers? What level power is this?

 pretre wrote:

 pretre wrote:
So, where is the permission to go outside of the existing rules in Basic. Page and quote please.

The request is amusingly paradoxical considering Basic is not a permissive rule set.

And where is that defined?

You just asked the same question again.

 Manchu wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
"Spinning Blade Leap" lets you move and attack

There's the permissive rule set.

No, that's one rule. Just as a basic attack in any edition of D&D allows you to swing your sword.

 streamdragon wrote:
While the X level (insert class here) with the actual Three Tiger Kick power would be doing X[W] (where x is likely at least 3), you do not have that power. Instead, you would do a basic attack and to simulate three kicks instead of one, I would bump your damage up to d8 and let you use DEX (you are a rogue, after all, and this seems like a fairly agile move!) for your To-Hit and Damage rolls.

I think this is an awesome homebrew martial power. Is it At Will or Encounter? And don't I have to level to get new powers? What level power is this?

It's adjudicating an action not covered by the rules. See my earlier quote of the DMG. You keep ignoring that 4E specifically allows you to do this and it is not 'cheating' or 'homebrew' as you so eloquently put it. It is a ruling as provided for in the DMG.

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 pretre wrote:
So, where is the permission to go outside of the existing rules in Basic. Page and quote please.

The request is amusingly paradoxical considering Basic is not a permissive rule set.

And where is that defined?

You just asked the same question again.

Yep. Because you are asserting that Basic is something. I am asking you to back that up.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
First because as Petre has been showing you, it's not a permissive

As you can see, I very much disagree with pretre. But even if I thought that you and pretre are correct about 4E not being a permissive rule set (+ "escape hatch"), I still don't think saying a game has a permissive rule set is an insult.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Second: It's a VERY common insult towards 4E by saying it's not DnD at all and more relatable to other things, wargames, chess, etc.

I do not say that 4E is "not D&D." I do say that 4E is more like a board game or a war game than other editions of D&D.

 Manchu wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
First because as Petre has been showing you, it's not a permissive

As you can see, I very much disagree with pretre. But even if I thought that you and pretre are correct about 4E not being a permissive rule set (+ "escape hatch"), I still don't think saying a game has a permissive rule set is an insult.

It's not an insult but you have been saying that 4E has less freedom than basic. This is demonstrably false. 4E has all of the 'escape hatch' that Basic and previous editions has plus it provides rules for more actions. You have more freedom and more abilities than any previous edition.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's put it this way.

Basic - You can do anything (infinite options) plus the 50 things that are listed in the PHB.
4E - You can do anything (infinite options) plus 500 things that are listed in the PHB.

Infinity +50 > Infinity +500.

 pretre wrote:
Just as a basic attack in any edition of D&D allows you to swing your sword.

Again, that is not how I play Basic. Here's how I play basic: the player describes to the DM what she wants to attempt and the DM rules on how to test whether she succeeds and then narrates the consequence. The text on attacks is not a permission for the player but a guideline for the DM.

 pretre wrote:
You keep ignoring that 4E specifically allows you to do this and it is not 'cheating' or 'homebrew' as you so eloquently put it. It is a ruling as provided for in the DMG.

I don't ignore it. Indeed, I told you that's almost how I used to DM 4E myself. As with the press release thing, you keep wanting me to mean X when I don't. What I have said is that the great thing about 4E is the clarity and balance of its rule set and how I can understand why players (like Buzzsaw) might object to using rulings when there are rules. I think that is a valid objection.

 pretre wrote:
Because you are asserting that Basic is something. I am asking you to back that up.

You keep asking me to tell you where Basic gives me permission to play it the way that I do, the way that I have explained I think it is best played given the rules, and I keep telling you that Basic is not a game that grants permission about anything. At this point, I'm yelling through soundproof glass. I am not trying to "win the argument," I am just trying to clarify my point of view.

 pretre wrote:
you have been saying that 4E has less freedom than basic

I have contrasted a permissive rule set, which invokes limitations by definition, against a non-permissive rule set, which does not.

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Just as a basic attack in any edition of D&D allows you to swing your sword.

Again, that is not how I play Basic. Here's how I play basic: the player describes to the DM what she wants to attempt and the DM rules on how to test whether she succeeds and then narrates the consequence. The text on attacks is not a permission for the player but a guideline for the DM.

But that's not Basic. That's how you play Basic. Nothing in Basic says that is the way to play the game. So hence when you say '4E is permissive and Basic is not' you aren't based in fact. You could be playing any game system and just adjudicating each roll, it has nothing to do with how Basic is structured.

I am not trying to "win the argument," I am just trying to clarify my point of view.

And yet you keep trying to tell us what 4th is and what we really mean. Example, you're using Buzzsaw's earlier statements as proof of how 4th edition players don't allow rulings when that wasn't at all what he was saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
you have been saying that 4E has less freedom than basic

I have contrasted a permissive rule set, which invokes limitations by definition, against a non-permissive rule set, which does not.

Except this whole 'permissive rule set' thing is only in your mind. Show me where 4E is a permissive rule set. 4E allows you to do whatever you want and the DM adjudicates. Basic only has rules. Where is the adjudication mechanism or 'escape hatch' in basic. The reason you need rulings in Basic is because if you play Basic as written you can't do practically anything. So players had to create the idea of 'rulings' in order to make it work even though there is no basis in the book for rulings.

To be clear, I mean Basic as 'Old D&D'. Next Basic says the DM can do whatever.

 Manchu wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
"Spinning Blade Leap" lets you move and attack

There's the permissive rule set.

 streamdragon wrote:
While the X level (insert class here) with the actual Three Tiger Kick power would be doing X[W] (where x is likely at least 3), you do not have that power. Instead, you would do a basic attack and to simulate three kicks instead of one, I would bump your damage up to d8 and let you use DEX (you are a rogue, after all, and this seems like a fairly agile move!) for your To-Hit and Damage rolls.

I think this is an awesome homebrew martial power. Is it At Will or Encounter? And don't I have to level to get new powers? What level power is this?

I could, and probably should, have phrased that as "As part of the attack you do X". I was merely trying to give a concise description of the power as presented, in case you weren't familiar with it. This is largely irrelevant, as it comes down to the same thing: rules for combat. All editions have them, you just apparently choose to ignore them in Basic in favor of descriptive gameplay. That doesn't change that the Basic PDF covers "I attack" as well as limitations and permissions for movement.

The power, as I said, is simply an arbitrated Basic Attack. An example of doing exactly what you described for other editions: Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.

@pretre:

I guess I could go through Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, and the Rules Cyclopedia to quote a bunch of "what is roleplaying?" language like you have with 4E. I know that's what you want me to do and what you think I have to do.

But I think that's irrelevant. The various instances of Basic D&D don't even contemplate a permissive RPG rule set. Just as a matter of history, this idea did not develop until the 2000s and does not seem to have been conscious (or at least very serious) design goal until the latter half of that decade. The paradigm of D&D has hugely shifted between 1974 and today. That shift is what makes this discussion possible. Trying to find the terms of this discussion, here in 2014, in publications from decades ago is foolish.

The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.

 streamdragon wrote:
Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.

S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?

This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many
places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the
attraction of ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS, and it is integral to the
game. Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to
the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter
entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER
CAMPAIGN. Participants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher,
but they do have ultimate recourse - since the most effective protest is
withdrawal from the offending campaign.

First edition D&D. So just like 4th ed, you are allowed to go outside the rules if necessary but the DM adjudicates those rulings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.

S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?

That makes sense. The DM provided a ruling. You were allowed to do it. Just as your fighter in your basic game is allowed to sneak up on guards and cut their throats whenever he wants.

 pretre wrote:
The reason you need rulings in Basic is because if you play Basic as written you can't do practically anything.

Yes, if you play Basic in the same way that you would play rule sets published decades later then Basic will seem awful. This exact thing happened to me. Then someone pointed out to me that Basic was not intended to be played like rule sets published decades later. It's just a simple thing, and I guess I was dumb for not realizing it, but the realization was a real enlightenment moment for me.