You might be playing DnD wrong if...

233 posts / 0 new
Last post
As such, any time any player wants to play a pacifist at a table I am planning to sit down at, I worry.  



Probably because they play it as a leader. They should play it as a controller.

I agree with Nirafelos, but i'm accostumed to hate towards pacifist since Divine Power release...

Anyway, i can understand when CO players tell me that pacifist are mostly useless: playing in a self-reliant party, with enablers and competent strikers, makes you feel that healing is really pointless.
I can't sincerely understand critics when these comes from less skilled players or parties, where surgeless healing, thp and save granting becomes essential for the adventurers' life.



Because that surgeless healing, thp, and save granting is essential because the pacifist wasn't doing any damage and the monsters survived long enough to do a bunch of damage and force the PCs to need saves.
Because that surgeless healing, thp, and save granting is essential because the pacifist wasn't doing any damage and the monsters survived long enough to do a bunch of damage and force the PCs to need saves.



Again, the degree to which a properly built pacifist actually slows combat speed depends wildly on the party and on the other leader you compare it to.  A warchanter or properly built warlord is definitely faster. A shaman may be, depending on the strikers. A laser cleric may be faster if there's lots of minions, but really won't be otherwise. If the pacifist is slapping -8 to defenses on targets, or giving them vulnerable 17 all, or forcing them to provoke 3+ OAs/round, they really aren't slowing combat down compared to anything but the most extremely optimized enabling leaders. Everything is relative, obviously, but a sentinel or warpriest or bad artificer or runepriest or really almost any non-optimized leader contributes meaningless personal damage to the party, so it's not as big of a loss as some people like to make it out to be.  

Obviously, if your party lacks any semi-decent MBAs, cause fear loses value, but so does traditional enabling.  Obviously, if your allies are too bad to capitalize on large vulnerability or huge defense penalties, you'd be better off playing a striker because it's THEM slowing combat down, not the pacifist.

And again, I'm not arguing that it's better than really anything, I'm just saying that there's a misconception here on CO that it's a lot worse than it is. Much like almost any other build of any other class, it's as good or as bad as power selection, player tactics, party composition, and party tactics make it. 
And again, I'm not arguing that it's better than really anything, I'm just saying that there's a misconception here on CO that it's a lot worse than it is. Much like almost any other build of any other class, it's as good or as bad as power selection, player tactics, party composition, and party tactics make it. 



At its very best, it doesn't do anything that a regular Cleric can't also do, except it can heal more effectively. And at the same time, it can't effectively finish off bloodied opponents. Given it costs a feat, it usually isn't a good trade on that basis alone.

On the basis that it also means giving up some sky blue power choices that do damage, it isn't like other builds.

And for me, in my experience, I've played with players who were reasonably good at tactics when not playing pacifists, but then dropped off a cliff and caused problems with their inability to just do some damage when things went wrong at the table.
Wow...what have I done...

In all fairness most of the people in this campaign had never played 4e before I started it. "our party has 3 people who do a ton of damage but don't have any hp. They'll kill the monsters pretty fast if I can just keep them alive." Is a pretty reasonable viewpoint to someone who doesn't know just how much enabling a leader can do. Especialy because we started the campaign as PHB1 only, so about the only thing the cleric could do was heal a lot.
I remember Netrunner and Hecatomb.
You might be playing DnD wrong if ...

You are a human Knight who started with stats of 18 15 11 10 10 13, boosted CHA and CON at 4 and then STR and DEX at 8, spends an entire turn doing nothing but switching from +2 flaming maul to non-magical broadsword and shield (because, "I have a shield ability and now I'm harder to hit!") and takes a bard multiclass feat all in the name of "roleplaying."

Had to get that one off my chest.
Sorry to necro this one, but we were playing and this one came up:

"If you're rolling d6s for sneak attack damage, you might be playing D&D wrong."
I remember Netrunner and Hecatomb.
Or you might be a level 1 non-human rogue (light blade expertise before backstabber).
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Sorry to necro this one, but we were playing and this one came up:

"If you're rolling d6s for sneak attack damage, you might be playing D&D wrong."



Or you took one of the elemental +dmg options, or, as Fardiz mentioned, LBE since they work with your standard and minor attacks.  Backstabber is usually the 3rd or 4th feat I pick up on a rogue.

You think going invisible makes you stealthy

You think being stealthy makes you invisible (And are not using invisibility)
RPGtable username : RTiger
I have not updated this thread for a while, and have no plans to do so in the next month.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
You made an executioner to optimize garrote strangle and spend rounds 2,3,4 of a combat trying to get in position to use it a second time in a combat.

Also. You made an executioner.
Your fighter used Tide of Iron to move the monster your rogue ally just hit with a Riposte Strike, out of flanking and next to a wall so the rogue can not move back into flanking on his next turn.




You inisist upon using forced movement on every power you have that contains it even though the tactical situation is consistently made worse for the party by your actions.

 
The only enemies you can defeat consistently are all properly represented by miniature plastic, pink flamingos.

But if this is wrong, I don't want to be right.

FIENDISH-DIRE-WEREFLAMINGO!
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Your character drowns in a normal well.
 
- You might be playing D&D wrong if you and the other players refuse to back each other up in combat and wonder why you have frequent TPKs or near-TPKs (true story).

- You might be playing D&D wrong if your DM keeps using a plain combat grid for your campaigns even though there are so many colourful maptiles and full-featured combat maps out there (also true story).
Sounds to me like the one really playing D&D wrong in that last story is the one writing that post instead of talking to his DM and fellow players about it.
you might be playing D&D wrong if you think there is a wrong way to play D&D.
you might be playing D&D wrong if you think there is a wrong way to play D&D.


This statement is self-defeating.  If you (Fish_Hat) think there's a wrong way to play D&D, then by your own statement you might be playing wrong.  If you don't think there's a wrong way to play D&D, then you lied, because you think its consequent can never be true.
- You might be playing D&D wrong if your DM keeps using a plain combat grid for your campaigns even though there are so many colourful maptiles and full-featured combat maps out there (also true story).


Are the maps free and available? Because if so, gimme, if not, you have no room to hate.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.

You attempt to use the new forums!

(But no one can see this because everything is ordered by post creation date...)

Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

You might be playing DnD wrong if you think learning the math is too "nerdy".

Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here

You might be playing DnD wrong if you never used your Chaladins Divine Mettle on yourself for 14 Levels.

You might be playing DnD wrong if you, as the DM, kill off a player with only a few hitpoints left because his allies held a candle too close to his critically wounded body.  You might also be playing DnD wrong if you do this sort of crap to your players every week causing them to make new characters constantly.  And finally:  You might be playing DnD wrong if you, as a player, continue to play with a DM who would do this week after week.

 

Luckily that group is basically dead in the water as 4/7 players have now jumped ship.  Takes all kinds.

"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

MainBrain wrote:

You might be playing DnD wrong if you never used your Chaladins Divine Mettle on yourself for 14 Levels.

Since Divine Mettle can't target the caster, you're playing precisely correctly in this.

Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.

thespaceinvader wrote:

 

MainBrain wrote:

You might be playing DnD wrong if you never used your Chaladins Divine Mettle on yourself for 14 Levels.

 

Since Divine Mettle can't target the caster, you're playing precisely correctly in this.

 

"'Creature' or 'creatures' means allies and enemies both, as well as you."  (PH 57)

 

Edit:  Ah, now I see.  Unless specified otherwise, a close burst you create does not affect you.  (PH 272) 

RC109 as well.

Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.

thespaceinvader wrote:

RC109 as well.

The wording of RC 109 has me leaning back the other way.  "Unless a power description indicates otherwise, a close burst does not affect its creator, even though the burst does include the origin square" (italics mine).  Now Divine Mettle is a close burst 10 whose target is "one creature in the burst."  PH 57 includes "you" in the definition of a creature, so in this case it seems to me that the power description does "indicate otherwise" and the caster of Divine Mettle can target himself.

"A close burst does not affect its creator".  You are its creator.  It does not affect YOU unless it SPECIFIES otherwise.  CF leader healing powers for what 'specifying otherwise' looks like.  You ARE one creature in the burst, but because YOU are not a specified target, individually, you can't use it on yourself.

Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.

Junkyard_Dog wrote:

 

thespaceinvader wrote:

RC109 as well.

 

The wording of RC 109 has me leaning back the other way.  "Unless a power description indicates otherwise, a close burst does not affect its creator, even though the burst does include the origin square" (italics mine).  Now Divine Mettle is a close burst 10 whose target is "one creature in the burst."  PH 57 includes "you" in the definition of a creature, so in this case it seems to me that the power description does "indicate otherwise" and the caster of Divine Mettle can target himself.

 

That's not what they're saying, since close bursts always include the burst.  That statement is to say that something in your square- like, say, a swarm or a tiny creature- is still subject to the burst.  You're always in your own burst, but it doesn't affect you unless the power specifies that it does.

You might be playing D&D wrong if...you spend hours reading discussions like this

 

I'’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.

 

You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct

 

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

 

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.


"Lolth be praised; all victory is her doing."