PDA

View Full Version : Murphy's Rules: Starting with some 4th ed



ringsnake
2008-06-11, 07:23 PM
I love Murphy's Rules (http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/kovalic/Murphys/Murphys.html), not because I'm the sort of snot who thinks I'm more clever than the games designer, but because often the attempts to simulate reality(ish) in games can cause some hilarious rules quirks.

Here's one I found in 4th right away:

Wearing heavy armor and a large shield penalizes the Endurance skill, and the Endurance skill is used to resist poison and disease. So Plate Mail makes you more vulnerable to getting the sniffles, or Lycanthropy, or Mummy Rot. Or tetanus if you don't happen to maintain your gear....

One envisions a naked Elan running about saying "Hooray! I'm both invisible AND immune to disease!"

Notice any others?

JaxGaret
2008-06-11, 07:35 PM
Heavy armor is heavy and stifling. I can't see it helping you to resist diseases to be cooped up in a tin can all day long.

Albonor
2008-06-11, 07:39 PM
Since there is now for the first time a possibility that magic missile will miss, it will.

starwoof
2008-06-11, 07:42 PM
Since there is now for the first time a possibility that magic missile will miss, it will.

Crap, that would mean that if I planned on playing 4th ed I would have to call it Magic Rocket. Missiles miss, rockets rock.

marjan
2008-06-11, 07:45 PM
Heavy armor is heavy and stifling. I can't see it helping you to resist diseases to be cooped up in a tin can all day long.

I don't mind armor not helping, but preventing you to resist disease (as well as preventing any other use of endurance skill) is just something that I cannot understand. This is especially annoying when you realize that meatshields are most hindered by it despite the fact that they should be more resilient.

wodan46
2008-06-11, 08:16 PM
Meatshields will have higher endurance scores most likely than others. However, if you spend all day trudging around wearing heavy armor, you are gonna get tired and exhausted more easily, and thus your body will be less able to fight disease (it can't spend energy on everything at once).

Furthermore, armor obscures your ability to treat disease and poison, and armor might inflict scratches here and there due to the armor bumping into you, resulting in easier infection.

marjan
2008-06-11, 08:22 PM
Meatshields will have higher endurance scores most likely than others. However, if you spend all day trudging around wearing heavy armor, you are gonna get tired and exhausted more easily, and thus your body will be less able to fight disease (it can't spend energy on everything at once).


They also fight as everyone else, which is more exhausting than wearing armor you are used to (you have training with it).



Furthermore, armor obscures your ability to treat disease and poison, and armor might inflict scratches here and there due to the armor bumping into you, resulting in easier infection.

Endurance is not your ability to treat disease and poison, that's heal. And while armor might inflict scratches (which is highly unlikely if it is well-designed), it can also protect you from scratches. So it protects as much as it hurts.

Signmaker
2008-06-11, 08:50 PM
They also fight as everyone else, which is more exhausting than wearing armor you are used to (you have training with it).



Endurance is not your ability to treat disease and poison, that's heal. And while armor might inflict scratches (which is highly unlikely if it is well-designed), it can also protect you from scratches. So it protects as much as it hurts.

I can't imagine being cooped up in a tin can all day in the weather is the healthiest thing to do. Especially in a world where one solves disease by magic. It's not like you're vaccinated or anything.

marjan
2008-06-11, 09:01 PM
I can't imagine being cooped up in a tin can all day in the weather is the healthiest thing to do. Especially in a world where one solves disease by magic. It's not like you're vaccinated or anything.

Maybe not the healthiest thing to do, but why is it unhealthy? I never said that armor should give you bonus to your endurance, just that I don't understand why it gives you a penalty.

JaxGaret
2008-06-11, 09:06 PM
Maybe not the healthiest thing to do, but why is it unhealthy? I never said that armor should give you bonus to your endurance, just that I don't understand why it gives you a penalty.

By saying it's "not the healthiest thing to do" or "it doesn't help", we pretty much mean that is is probably unhealthy to do it.

I can't imagine that wearing heavy armor all day wouldn't make it more difficult to stave off the plague.

marjan
2008-06-11, 09:14 PM
By saying it's "not the healthiest thing to do" or "it doesn't help", we pretty much mean that is is probably unhealthy to do it.


So something must either help or hurt? I don't think this is the case.



I can't imagine that wearing heavy armor all day wouldn't make it more difficult to stave off the plague.

Yes, it would hurt you and me since we are not used to wearing armor. But warriors are supposed to be used to it. They don't become fatigued (or whatever condition would be in 4e) while wearing it so I don't see why they would suffer any penalties.

Dark Tira
2008-06-11, 09:15 PM
So something must either help or hurt? I don't think this is the case.



Yes, it would hurt you and me since we are not used to wearing armor. But warriors are supposed to be used to it. They don't become fatigued (or whatever condition would be in 4e) while wearing it so I don't see why they would suffer any penalties.
Couldn't the Endurance penalty be considered to be the replacement for fatigue?

marjan
2008-06-11, 09:25 PM
Couldn't the Endurance penalty be considered to be the replacement for fatigue?

You have a point there. But we still have a problem - Why don't you apply that penalty to fort, ref defenses and your attacks, since fatigue does that.

Dark Tira
2008-06-11, 09:28 PM
You have a point there. But we still have a problem - Why don't you apply that penalty to fort, ref defenses and your attacks, since fatigue does that.

That would kind of negate the point in wearing the armor in the first place, wouldn't it?

Chronicled
2008-06-11, 09:30 PM
Yes, it would hurt you and me since we are not used to wearing armor. But warriors are supposed to be used to it. They don't become fatigued (or whatever condition would be in 4e) while wearing it so I don't see why they would suffer any penalties.

Even Olympic runners get tired after a marathon. Just because they're used to it doesn't mean it can't exhaust them.

And it would be pretty hard on the body to walk around in full plate all day long.

Albonor
2008-06-11, 09:38 PM
Last I checked, almost as many knights who died in th 100 years war died from armor-related diseases (sun-related) than from wounds.

I think that to point is that of course the fighter will have a much better Endurance score than the wizard, even with the armor on, but can you imagine the same wizard wearing that armor all day for a week and then getting exposed to the flu? Probably not a very good immune system by then.

So of course a great warrior in great shape will not crumble after a few hours in heavy armor but it will weaken him over time...

marjan
2008-06-11, 09:39 PM
That would kind of negate the point in wearing the armor in the first place, wouldn't it?

Just because it is pointless doesn't mean it won't happen.


Even Olympic runners get tired after a marathon. Just because they're used to it doesn't mean it can't exhaust them.



After running a mile he will be still ready to run that marathon. On the other hand after running a mile I would be dead.




And it would be pretty hard on the body to walk around in full plate all day long.

As I said it would be for you and me. Try living without clothes for 10 years. Then put them back on and it will be a little tiring.

Worira
2008-06-11, 09:42 PM
Uh, no. Wearing full plate around all day is tiring for anyone, and exhaustion weakens the immune system. That's just how the human body works.

marjan
2008-06-11, 09:43 PM
I think that to point is that of course the fighter will have a much better Endurance score than the wizard, even with the armor on, but can you imagine the same wizard wearing that armor all day for a week and then getting exposed to the flu? Probably not a very good immune system by then.


Except that the wizard will have same endurance with the armor on, and probably better without it.

Albonor
2008-06-11, 11:03 PM
Except that the wizard will have same endurance with the armor on, and probably better without it.

Wait, what? Endurance is a class skill for wizards in 4e? And not being proficient with heavy armor does not penalise the skill further? Can I get a quote from somebody who has access to the book please? THAT would be a Murphy's Law!

Nu
2008-06-11, 11:06 PM
Wait, what? Endurance is a class skill for wizards in 4e? And not being proficient with heavy armor does not penalise the skill further? Can I get a quote from somebody who has access to the book please? THAT would be a Murphy's Law!

Er, no, it's not.

marjan
2008-06-11, 11:13 PM
Wait, what? Endurance is a class skill for wizards in 4e? And not being proficient with heavy armor does not penalise the skill further? Can I get a quote from somebody who has access to the book please? THAT would be a Murphy's Law!

They can still use a feat to train it.

Worira
2008-06-11, 11:15 PM
So, wizards who have specifically trained to use armour can use it? And this is a problem why?

Chronicled
2008-06-11, 11:21 PM
After running a mile he will be still ready to run that marathon. On the other hand after running a mile I would be dead.


As I said it would be for you and me. Try living without clothes for 10 years. Then put them back on and it will be a little tiring.

Your analogies, they do not work. This is because they are inaccurate.

As Albonor pointed out, baking alive in your armor was a very real threat. Look at Agincourt, where the French knights were cooked alive when their ranks got too packed and the incredible mud immobilized them. Knights that had trained to wear armor since childhood.

Have you ever tried wearing armor? Some of us have, and know what we're talking about. Can you understand that there are some things that the human body cannot "get used to" enough to ignore? A much better analogy than yours would be food deprivation: even if your body gets used to going without enough food, the lack of enough food will stunt your growth and weaken your immune system.

marjan
2008-06-11, 11:23 PM
So, wizards who have specifically trained to use armour can use it? And this is a problem why?

No, wizards who are specifically trained in Endurance and have no armor proficiency with the armor they wear, feel as much the comfortable as warrior who is trained in Endurance and is proficient with said armor. Here you are - a problem.

Dark Tira
2008-06-11, 11:27 PM
No, wizards who are specifically trained in Endurance and have no armor proficiency with the armor they wear, feel as much the comfortable as warrior who is trained in Endurance and is proficient with said armor. Here you are - a problem.
Except they still take the non-proficiency penalty and if they trained in endurance why shouldn't they endure it as well as someone else who's trained in endurance?

marjan
2008-06-11, 11:27 PM
Your analogies, they do not work. This is because they are inaccurate.

As Albonor pointed out, baking alive in your armor was a very real threat. Look at Agincourt, where the French knights were cooked alive when their ranks got too packed and the incredible mud immobilized them. Knights that had trained to wear armor since childhood.

Have you ever tried wearing armor? Some of us have, and know what we're talking about. Can you understand that there are some things that the human body cannot "get used to" enough to ignore? A much better analogy than yours would be food deprivation: even if your body gets used to going without enough food, the lack of enough food will stunt your growth and weaken your immune system.

First of all, if you are talking about running, it was your analogy.

Second the example of your knights is bad because it has other unfavorable circumstances.

Third, just because you tried doesn't mean you are proficient with it.


Except they still take the non-proficiency penalty and if they trained in endurance why shouldn't they endure it as well as someone else who's trained in endurance?

And only the standard for endurance, which everyone takes.

LurkerInPlayground
2008-06-11, 11:35 PM
Heavy armor is heavy and stifling. I can't see it helping you to resist diseases to be cooped up in a tin can all day long.
Or you can use always use DM fiat and just let your players off easy.

Worira
2008-06-11, 11:47 PM
You don't just "get used to" wearing 50 pounds of metal. It's still going to be more tiring to wear armour than it is to not wear it.

Chronicled
2008-06-12, 12:03 AM
First of all, if you are talking about running, it was your analogy.

Second the example of your knights is bad because it has other unfavorable circumstances.

Third, just because you tried doesn't mean you are proficient with it.

And only the standard for endurance, which everyone takes.

First, when I used running as an analogy, it was for a marathon runner, running a marathon. Not "running a mile," which was your analogy.

Second, circumstances will always have something unfavorable. The Agincourt example showed some of the extremes of what could happen, but was less atypical than you might think. Try looking up some of the battles fought during the Crusades; dying from heat buildup was a common enough occurance--and even if it didn't kill you, it would certainly fatigue you.

Third, have you even tried wearing armor, or ever talked to people who frequently do (SCA members, for instance)? I can't think of a SCA member I know who wouldn't find your claims utterly laughable and ignorant. Try researching.

Dervag
2008-06-12, 12:40 AM
Second the example of your knights is bad because it has other unfavorable circumstances.

Third, just because you tried doesn't mean you are proficient with it.OK. Stop and think for a minute.

Unfavorable circumstances are kind of the point of the exercise here. When it's hot, wearing armor means that you get overheated. Armor has underlayers of padding that invite insect infestations unless kept very carefully clean. Even for the best trained man, wearing steel armor that weighs a lot will be at least somewhat physically tiring.

Training cannot make the human body into some kind of invincible 'iron man'. There are upper limits on human endurance. A person can train to run all day, or to wear armor all day, or to do all sorts of things that would exhaust an average person quickly. They cannot make it easy.

The marathon runner can, of course, run a marathon. If you made the marathon a little longer, he could run that too. But if you expect him to run marathons every day, within a very short time he will be a complete wreck physically. He'll get tired, sick, weakened. He won't be able to run any more. This is why long-term athletic events like the Tour de France are so challenging- by forcing the athlete to use his physical peak abilities day after day, you strain the limits of his endurance.

Even for this super-runner, running marathons is still a strain on the body.

Wearing armor all day may not be that great a strain, but the problem is still there. He's got to pay more attention to personal hygeine to stay clean; he's performing continuous low-level physical labor. It gets in the way and wears him down a little. Not a lot, a little.

As in, by the amount he gets penalized for wearing heavy armor.

JaxGaret
2008-06-12, 12:49 AM
*snip*

Not a lot, a little.

As in, by the amount he gets penalized for wearing heavy armor.

I was going to make the same point, but you basically said it as well here as I could have.

A small (-1) or moderate (-2) penalty in this case seems pretty much spot on for what it is.

marjan
2008-06-12, 01:31 AM
First, when I used running as an analogy, it was for a marathon runner, running a marathon. Not "running a mile," which was your analogy.


It was your analogy, I just extended it.



Second, circumstances will always have something unfavorable. The Agincourt example showed some of the extremes of what could happen, but was less atypical than you might think. Try looking up some of the battles fought during the Crusades; dying from heat buildup was a common enough occurance--and even if it didn't kill you, it would certainly fatigue you.


My point was that in such circumstances even wearing winter clothes which aren't encumbering you at all is still going to cause you problems.



Third, have you even tried wearing armor, or ever talked to people who frequently do (SCA members, for instance)? I can't think of a SCA member I know who wouldn't find your claims utterly laughable and ignorant. Try researching.

No, I never tried wearing armor, and I do believe that it is not very comfortable, but I do believe that it should be easier if you are used to wearing it. That was my point from the beginning.

And there is no need to emphasize parts of your post, I read them all.


OK. Stop and think for a minute.

Unfavorable circumstances are kind of the point of the exercise here. When it's hot, wearing armor means that you get overheated. Armor has underlayers of padding that invite insect infestations unless kept very carefully clean. Even for the best trained man, wearing steel armor that weighs a lot will be at least somewhat physically tiring.


As I said above, in hot weather it is also exhausting to wear winter clothes.



Training cannot make the human body into some kind of invincible 'iron man'. There are upper limits on human endurance. A person can train to run all day, or to wear armor all day, or to do all sorts of things that would exhaust an average person quickly. They cannot make it easy.


I agree. It's just that upper limits are different for different people.



The marathon runner can, of course, run a marathon. If you made the marathon a little longer, he could run that too. But if you expect him to run marathons every day, within a very short time he will be a complete wreck physically. He'll get tired, sick, weakened. He won't be able to run any more. This is why long-term athletic events like the Tour de France are so challenging- by forcing the athlete to use his physical peak abilities day after day, you strain the limits of his endurance.


Note that I am discussing D&D rules here, where this is absolutely irrelevant as you start each day fresh as if you had rested for a month. Other than that I agree with you.




Wearing armor all day may not be that great a strain, but the problem is still there. He's got to pay more attention to personal hygeine to stay clean; he's performing continuous low-level physical labor. It gets in the way and wears him down a little. Not a lot, a little.

As in, by the amount he gets penalized for wearing heavy armor.

See, the problem I have with that approach is that hygiene is a problem even if you wear normal clothing.



And let's say that the reason that ACP is applied to the Endurance is because of the its weight, which exhaust you slowly. It certainly is reasonable approach, and the reason obviously isn't that it restricts a movement. We still have the a few problems:

- You have penalty as soon as you put on your armor and it disappears as soon as you put it off.
This is probably done for the sake of simplicity, so I'll disregard it.

- Why don't you have penalty to your defenses, attack and damage? Tired people move slower and don't hit as hard as fully rested.
This might be just balance issue, though it could have been compensated through other means, by giving the classes that use armor higher to-hit, damage and maybe defenses. Or they could just remove that penalty form Endurance so ACP could be defined as restricting movement. I still think that it is strange to give a penalty to a class on a skill that it will use often, just because it is using items they class is supposed to use.

- If, for example, you have 14 str, you can carry a maximum of 140lbs. So you can carry 140lbs around without penalty, but if you wear plate armor (50lbs) you get -2 to your Endurance. Even worse is the situation where you have a heavy shield. That is 15lbs which don't bother you at all until you are holding it in your hands. I don't see why this is the case. It wouldn't complicate the things much and it wouldn't unbalance things.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-12, 01:58 AM
Wow, most derailed thread ever.

So... Murphey's Rules, eh? How about how Magic Missile is a "basic ranged attack" but as far as I can see, nothing lets you make basic ranged attacks? Basic melee attacks can be used as Opportunity Attacks, but ranged attacks?

Anyone with me?

marjan
2008-06-12, 02:08 AM
Wow, most derailed thread ever.

So... Murphey's Rules, eh? How about how Magic Missile is a "basic ranged attack" but as far as I can see, nothing lets you make basic ranged attacks? Basic melee attacks can be used as Opportunity Attacks, but ranged attacks?

Anyone with me?

Warlord, I think, gives you the ability to use them.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-12, 02:14 AM
Warlord, I think, gives you the ability to use them.

All I've found is "Commander's Strike" which specifically says "An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target." (emphasis mine).

Or did you find another power?

Temp.
2008-06-12, 02:19 AM
Even for this super-runner, running marathons is still a strain on the body.For some reason, I was tempted to ironically state "That's absurd" (or something along those lines) and link to an Onion article (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42542) I remembered while reading your post. But then I thought that it's probably too late for me to execute that in an even remotely entertaining fashion.

marjan
2008-06-12, 02:22 AM
All I've found is "Commander's Strike" which specifically says "An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target." (emphasis mine).

Or did you find another power?

No, that's the one. I just remembered that it mentioned basic attack. So only hope is in splatbooks, I guess.

Leshan
2008-06-12, 02:36 AM
Wow, most derailed thread ever.

So... Murphey's Rules, eh? How about how Magic Missile is a "basic ranged attack" but as far as I can see, nothing lets you make basic ranged attacks? Basic melee attacks can be used as Opportunity Attacks, but ranged attacks?

Anyone with me?

Actually, in the Penny Arcade/PVP podcast featured in Dragon, Chris Perkins says that you can take an OA with magic missle. I think it's somewhere in the second half of the podcast (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080606).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-12, 02:45 AM
Actually, in the Penny Arcade/PVP podcast featured in Dragon, Chris Perkins says that you can take an OA with magic missle. I think it's somewhere in the second half of the podcast (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080606).

I heard the same thing, but I thought that can't be the case.

*digs through books*

Yep, page 290: "An opportunity attack is a basic melee attack"

Plus, using basic ranged attacks when adjacent to dudes with swords provokes an OA.

Newtkeeper
2008-06-12, 08:46 PM
Due to the lack of crafting skills, some schmo with an anvil has the same ability to make armor/weapons/baskets as a legendary smith.



And, apropos to armor: yes, wearing armor (or generically hot clothing) in the wrong weather will eventually sap your fatigue. No, it doesn't, as the rules would imply, have that effect the second you put it on!

marjan
2008-06-12, 09:03 PM
And, apropos to armor: yes, wearing armor (or generically hot clothing) in the wrong weather will eventually sap your fatigue. No, it doesn't, as the rules would imply, have that effect the second you put it on!

Page with that implication?

Newtkeeper
2008-06-12, 09:06 PM
Page with that implication?

Fact that it provides, upon being donned, a penalty to endurance, which is being justified as a result of said fatigue.

Indon
2008-06-12, 09:19 PM
Try looking up some of the battles fought during the Crusades; dying from heat buildup was a common enough occurance--and even if it didn't kill you, it would certainly fatigue you.

Hmm, so armor provides a fatigue value because fantasy characters don't understand the value of proper hydration, then. Very interesting.


Third, have you even tried wearing armor, or ever talked to people who frequently do (SCA members, for instance)? I can't think of a SCA member I know who wouldn't find your claims utterly laughable and ignorant. Try researching.

I don't know any SCA members who are in the Paragon tier (and at best, like 2 in the Heroic). Do the penalties go away, y'know, as you essentially attain godlike power?

RiOrius
2008-06-12, 10:55 PM
Hmm, so armor provides a fatigue value because fantasy characters don't understand the value of proper hydration, then. Very interesting.


Erm, you can suffer from ill effects of heat even if you're properly hydrated. Water does not, in fact, cure all heat-related issues.




I don't know any SCA members who are in the Paragon tier (and at best, like 2 in the Heroic). Do the penalties go away, y'know, as you essentially attain godlike power?

High-level characters have bonuses due to their level. This allows them to be awesome even if they have an armor check penalty to some skills. I mean, Paragon-tier characters can probably hit stationary targets with ranged weapons at maximum range. That doesn't mean that shooting far away things isn't hard, just that high-level characters are awesome. Similarly, armor imposes penalties; high level characters just laugh at the measly -2 (unless it's a high level disease, of course).

Indon
2008-06-12, 11:03 PM
Erm, you can suffer from ill effects of heat even if you're properly hydrated. Water does not, in fact, cure all heat-related issues.

Hmm, true, there'd probably be ventilation issues with the heavier armors.



high level characters just laugh at the measly -2 (unless it's a high level disease, of course).

Diseases scale with level, so no, as a high-level character you'll probably never be able to "laugh" at a "measly" -2 penalty to anything, including a skill.