No Magic Thrown Weapons 4th Edition

[ddobard1]

The Players Handbook 1 4th edition says and i quote: "Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved." Is reasonable because it's a magic weapon. But what about no magic Thrown Weapons? Ty.

[ddobard1]

Anyone can give a hint? Ty.

[Chai]

In their huge effort to make 4e less complicated for the players than the previous editions by generalizing the way things work, they also made it alot more complicated on DMs and REFs who now have to make more house rulings based apon the lack of coverage for particular situations that used to be covered in previous editions.

In a situational game, 4e tried to make combat absolute, and contradicts itself quite a few times over in doing so. Not only are there situations that have no rules written for them, there are situations that have more than one rule written for them, which contradict eachother.

[rimble]

Haven't played 4th Ed, but it sounds like they're saying "it's assumed any magic thrown weapons are enchanted with what was traditionally called the 'Returning' property, because who would craft one any other way". I don't think that holds any implications or assumptions regarding non-magic thrown weapons (they stay where they land).

[dkyle]

In a situational game, 4e tried to make combat absolute, and contradicts itself quite a few times over in doing so. Not only are there situations that have no rules written for them, there are situations that have more than one rule written for them, which contradict eachother.

Perhaps there are, but I haven't found many in the 2 years I've been DMing. I always find myself highly confused when you say things like this.

The rules are clear. Magic thrown weapons automatically return. Non-magic ones have no such property specified, so they behave the way any other thrown item would be expected to behave. They do not return.

[Calebro]

The Players Handbook 1 4th edition says and i quote: "Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved." Is reasonable because it's a magic weapon. But what about no magic Thrown Weapons? Ty.

If you throw a kitchen knife, does it come back to you?
No.

But according to 4e, if it were a magic kitchen knife it would.

[hityawithastick]

Tip: Don't throw 4e magical items at creatures made of/covered with acid, lava, rust monster juice, pasta sauce, etc.

[Talon_Moonshadow]

If you throw a kitchen knife, does it come back to you?
No.

But according to 4e, if it were a magic kitchen knife it would.

Depends on who it lands next to, and how upset they are at the time.

[Calebro]

Depends on who it lands next to, and how upset they are at the time.

[Chai]

Perhaps there are, but I haven't found many in the 2 years I've been DMing. I always find myself highly confused when you say things like this.

The rules are clear. Magic thrown weapons automatically return. Non-magic ones have no such property specified, so they behave the way any other thrown item would be expected to behave. They do not return.

Its always an entertaining conversation when a player pulls out a splat book for a specific class, race, etc. and shows me a rule for how something works, and I pull out the PHB or DMG and show them a rule for the exact same situation that contradicts what is in the specific book. This is far less common than the next wonderful thing I see happen alot more, which is.....

Its also groin grabbingly hilarious at a session, and this is more common, when someone asks about a specific thing they want to do, and no one can find anything written about it, but we all seem to know exactly where to find material in 2e, 3e, or 3.5e that shows the mechanics that should be followed to conduct that specific action. This is because the reverse engineered MMO on paper that is 4e excludes a huge amount of diversity in hopes to simplify the game to the point where it doesnt take eons to learn how to play it. Things got left out, and this is the first major edition this happened to, to this degree. We either have to go on assumption, or make a house rule, and usually that is based somewhat on the older mechanic in PREVIOUS EDITIONS, heh.

[RictrasShard]

Its always an entertaining conversation when a player pulls out a splat book for a specific class, race, etc. and shows me a rule for how something works, and I pull out the PHB or DMG and show them a rule for the exact same situation that contradicts what is in the specific book. This is far less common than the next wonderful thing I see happen alot more, which is.....

Its also groin grabbingly hilarious at a session, and this is more common, when someone asks about a specific thing they want to do, and no one can find anything written about it, but we all seem to know exactly where to find material in 2e, 3e, or 3.5e that shows the mechanics that should be followed to conduct that specific action. This is because the reverse engineered MMO on paper that is 4e excludes a huge amount of diversity in hopes to simplify the game to the point where it doesnt take eons to learn how to play it. Things got left out, and this is the first major edition this happened to, to this degree. We either have to go on assumption, or make a house rule, and usually that is based somewhat on the older mechanic in PREVIOUS EDITIONS, heh.

Do you have any specific examples for either of these things?

[dkyle]

Yes, examples please. I don't recall needed rules I couldn't find.

And yes, some rules have changed over time. This is a good thing. People make mistakes, even game designers, and I'm glad WotC cares to make 4E a better game. As opposed to 3.5, where they broke it from the start, then just broke it further and further.

If you look at the rules for Stealth in the PHB, PHB2, and (I think) PHB3 you'll see various versions. The original ones made stealth way too powerful, so they fixed it early on with an online errata. PHB2 printed those rules. There were a few oddities with how those rules worked, and so they later smoothed those over. I believe PHB3 published those new rules.

[FlyingTurtle]

Fighter: I got this scroll to permanently enchant one of my weapons by +1. Wizard can you cast it?
Wizard: Ok. Which weapon?
Fighter: I don't care, just any one.
Wizard: Okies. (picks the throwing net, makes it +1)

...the next day

Fighter throws net at kobolds.
Kobolds start to get entangled....
Attack resolved, net returns.
Kobolds are no longer entangled.
They attack the fighter, fighter dies.

Fighter: #$$@# wizard!

[dkyle]

While a cute story, that's not an accurate reflection of 4E. First off, the net only comes from a Dragon article. Dragon articles often have many problems. My policy on those articles is, I need to approve things on a case by case basis.

Secondly, simply wielding a net doesn't enable one to entangle someone with it. Any more than simply wielding a warhammer enables someone to stun with it. All the actual powers that are available for use with a net, do work with a magic net, as written. They don't always make a ton of sense if you treat the rules as a literal representation of what's going on (they apply effects that linger after the net should return), but the actual rules do work. It just takes a little re-flavoring to get them to make more sense (usually it's sufficient to pretend that the net returns when the effects of it end).

[Robi3.0]

Yeah as a DM I would make you walk over and pull your knife out of a body if it was not magic and you wanted it back. Not really a huge issue, unless you wanted to throw it again while still in combat and to that I say, buy a magic weapon.

[Chai]

Do you have any specific examples for either of these things?

Party is walking down a hallway. Someone in the party manages to expose a pit trap that extends for 12 feet, with a low ceiling. Player wants to jump the pit trap. How do you make the determination that they made it or not?

In 3.5e, theres a mechanic for total result with a multiplier where a player can make a roll, and determine exactly how far they jumped according to the total result. Once the calculation is made, its no question if the jumper made it or not. There is also a rule for arc, -vs- jumping straight accross.

In 4e, there is furious debate on what is considered easy -vs- medium -vs- hard in this scenario. Hilarity ensues. At some point, the DM has to pipe up and say, "its hard because I said it is."

You either jumped 12 feet with a low ceiling, or you didnt. Kobolds dont always dig traps in 5 foot squares.

[Chai]

While a cute story, that's not an accurate reflection of 4E. First off, the net only comes from a Dragon article. Dragon articles often have many problems. My policy on those articles is, I need to approve things on a case by case basis.

Secondly, simply wielding a net doesn't enable one to entangle someone with it. Any more than simply wielding a warhammer enables someone to stun with it. All the actual powers that are available for use with a net, do work with a magic net, as written. They don't always make a ton of sense if you treat the rules as a literal representation of what's going on (they apply effects that linger after the net should return), but the actual rules do work. It just takes a little re-flavoring to get them to make more sense (usually it's sufficient to pretend that the net returns when the effects of it end).

In 3.5 this assumption would not need to be made, because the items abilities in question would be clearly defined. Different groups of players will make different rules for this situation in 4e. At the Cons, hilarity ensues when these people get together and they all just assumed their method was the way it always worked because their DM said so, and thats how they were used to playing for months or even years.

[dkyle]

In 4e, there is furious debate on what is considered easy -vs- medium -vs- hard in this scenario. Hilarity ensues. At some point, the DM has to pipe up and say, "its hard because I said it is."

Or you use the rules for jumping listed in the Athletics skill. Roll the skill, divide by 5 to get the number of squares cleared (in this case, probably 2). Alternatively, it could make sense to just use the check as the number of feet cleared if this is out of combat. The vertical distance is the horizontal distance divided by 4. In this case, a 12 foot long jump would result in 3 feet of vertical displacement. Assuming a 6 foot tall PC, if the clearance is less than 9 ft, it would make sense to apply a situational penalty to the check (-2 or more).

If the PC comes up slightly short, there are rules for catching one's self in the climb section of the Athletics skill.

I don't believe the rules are any less comprehensive than 3.5's:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm

The long jump rules look essentially identical to me. In fact, 3.5's long jump rules even only specify 5 foot intervals!

In 3.5 this assumption would not need to be made, because the items abilities in question would be clearly defined. Different groups of players will make different rules for this situation in 4e.

What assumptions? I specifically stated that the rules are clear. Nets work according to specific and well defined rules. It's just a matter of stretching your imagination a bit if you don't like some of the implications of those rules. Furthermore, wasn't Dragon not RPGA legal in the 3.5 days?

[Chai]

Or you use the rules for jumping listed in the Athletics skill. Roll the skill, divide by 5 to get the number of squares cleared (in this case, probably 2). Alternatively, it could make sense to just use the check as the number of feet cleared if this is out of combat. The vertical distance is the horizontal distance divided by 4. In this case, a 12 foot long jump would result in 3 feet of vertical displacement. Assuming a 6 foot tall PC, if the clearance is less than 9 ft, it would make sense to apply a situational penalty to the check (-2 or more).

If the PC comes up slightly short, there are rules for catching one's self in the climb section of the Athletics skill.

I don't believe the rules are any less comprehensive than 3.5's: [/QUOTE]

They are less precise, and much harder to make adhere to a situation without having to make a ruling which is the EXACT point I have been making all along. In attempting to disagree with me, you are agreeing with your comment about ruling ina situational penalty.

divide by 5? because everyone just makes traps in 5 foot increments....

The long jump rules look essentially identical to me. In fact, 3.5's long jump rules even only specify 5 foot intervals!

In 3.5 you can multiply your total result by a factor to determine exactly how far you jumped, when a DM like me, god forbid, makes a trap that isnt a multiple of 5 feet long, with a ceiling that is lower than the multiplier suggests would be needed. Plain, simple.

What assumptions? I specifically stated that the rules are clear. Nets work according to specific and well defined rules. It's just a matter of stretching your imagination a bit if you don't like some of the implications of those rules. Furthermore, wasn't Dragon not RPGA legal in the 3.5 days?

Stretching your imagination in different ways than the people you might be playing with at the cons stretched their imagination. Its always fun to walk around and ask certain designers, players, refs, etc. how they resolve these situations. MOST of the time they will tell you "well, we had to talk about that for a while, and this is how it worked in (insert other edition here) so this is how we made the rule.

I battle tested this stuff as a player for almost a year before it launched, and had quite a few of these lovely conversations in fact....

[Chai]

Yes, examples please. I don't recall needed rules I couldn't find.

And yes, some rules have changed over time. This is a good thing. People make mistakes, even game designers, and I'm glad WotC cares to make 4E a better game. As opposed to 3.5, where they broke it from the start, then just broke it further and further.

If you look at the rules for Stealth in the PHB, PHB2, and (I think) PHB3 you'll see various versions. The original ones made stealth way too powerful, so they fixed it early on with an online errata. PHB2 printed those rules. There were a few oddities with how those rules worked, and so they later smoothed those over. I believe PHB3 published those new rules.

The fact that PHB3 is even needed makes me question if this entire thing is a money sync. I remember when the class books for 2e came out, and people were like "wow, I can spend 500 dollars on this game and still not have all the materials".

4e is just as broke as 3.5 but its broke in different ways. When battle testing a possible module, as a REF, I wiped the entire party out with a warlock 1 level higher than the party was, in a pirate campaign with ship to ship style combat. I dont think that module got a real name or was even released because of all the broken encounters, which are supposed to be well within the partys ability to handle. I remember standing next to the DM going, you mean he can do this as many times as he wants? /points to specific power....

It seems to me that in 3.5, the higher level you got, the more broken things became, where in 4.0 if something is broke its broke from day 1 and if something works well it works well from day 1, and in either case, those things continue to do so throughout the campaign.

I think they are trying to make an "easier" game with 4e. Better is a matter of opinion.