|
1 year ago ::
Apr 16, 2012 - 1:09PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I you watch Chris Perkins DM, like when he DM'd the writers for Robot Chicken, he makes it clear that spells that say they target "A Creature" cannot be used against an innanimate object. I
Did you hear the uproar about that across the 4e boards? Yup there was one. No most did not agree.
It does seem to keep with the 4e approach in some ways. Keeping most spell judgments to the minimum. I agree with you though I'd much prefer to have spells have real effects in the game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 16, 2012 - 4:18PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I you watch Chris Perkins DM, like when he DM'd the writers for Robot Chicken, he makes it clear that spells that say they target "A Creature" cannot be used against an innanimate object. I
Did you hear the uproar about that across the 4e boards? Yup there was one. No most did not agree.
It does seem to keep with the 4e approach in some ways. Keeping most spell judgments to the minimum. I agree with you though I'd much prefer to have spells have real effects in the game.
Basic game philosophy is breached on more than one level, (one was simply the just say yes which has caveats ofcourse including the bag of rats trick) and pretty much everyone knew it, for being known to be talented DM there was more than a couple of extreme question marks flying around here.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 16, 2012 - 6:05PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
I you watch Chris Perkins DM, like when he DM'd the writers for Robot Chicken, he makes it clear that spells that say they target "A Creature" cannot be used against an innanimate object. I
Did you hear the uproar about that across the 4e boards? Yup there was one. No most did not agree.
It does seem to keep with the 4e approach in some ways. Keeping most spell judgments to the minimum. I agree with you though I'd much prefer to have spells have real effects in the game.
4e explicitly allows powers that target creatures to target objects. It'd be kinda silly if it didn't, considering Melee Basic Attack targets 'one creature.' It's easy to miss because it's errata:
Target
Page 57: Replace the first paragraph with the following
text.
If a power directly affects one or more creatures or
objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. Some
powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion,
a power that targets a creature can also target an
object, whether or not the power identifies an object
as a potential target. Since it's at the DMs discretion, I feel free to allow most powers to target objects that have a defense and hps, but not Magic Missle. The original PH Magic Missle, sure, but the auto-hit freebie magic missle, no. But that's just because they updated Magic Missle to be as problematic as the classic version.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 16, 2012 - 7:07PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
The point is, even without the Errata correction though, I would allow the Eldrich Blast to target the object in the scenerio above...because of the role play potential and creativity, but I wouldn't allow the errata'd Magic Missile, because it is an auto-hit spell.
Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 16, 2012 - 8:56PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
@Shamanstarr, @mbeacom
I think both you guys are credits to the game.
Thank you for the fantastic compliment. And the same to you. It's always nice to have fruitful exchanges. It's funny, I disagree with Shamanstarr on a lot of things but our exchanges are always very productive. I never understand the people who say they simply couldn't have fun at someones table they disagree with, how people in this hobby can be so implacable. I'm confident that I could have fun at anyones table who cares enough about the hobby to be commenting on these boards. We really do have more similarities than differences. We absolutely have to. Any kind of edition wars, playstyle wars, etc just makes no sense to me. My least favorite edition was 3rd but I still feel like the people who love and play 3rd are my brothers and sisters. We all play D&D. The idea that there's a "right" way to play pretend, a "right" way to pretend we are elves and dwarves, is kind of strange really, if you think about it. Imagine someone standing up, pointing at you and declaring, "That is not the proper way to pretend to be an elf!" It always makes me smile. Whenever someone really attacks on the boards over someone elses opinions, I just imagine them doing that very thing and then I just smile and take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 4:06AM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
Once again, as is often the case when it comes down to the spirit behind the games, I'm in total agreement with mbeacom on this. I'm absolutely certain that I could sit down at mbeacom's table and enjoy myself immensely playing whatever edition of whatever game he had in store for me. I would hope that the same would be true if he sat down at my table as well.
If you love the games you play, if you put your heart into the game, and make it the hobby that it is meant to be, it doesn't matter about the disagreements, because the love of the game will shine through. I have for the most part converted most of my friends to 4e D&D, at least when I DM it. I have some friends who will only play 4e if I'm the one running the game. Otherwise, they are dedicated to games like Marvel Diceless, Pathfinder, White Wolf, or Hackmaster. I enjoy playing in those games with most of them (I can't really enjoy a Diceless RPG, at least, I haven't yet with Marvel Diceless) but I understand the underpinings that is in the heart of a true gamer.
The feel of the dice, the imagination that is not only your own, but shared with a group of friends around a table. The pretending to be an Elf, your way, while your buddy pretends to be a Dwarf, his way, is what its all about.
We can agree to disagree on a ton of different issues about specifics in the games we play, but the commonality far outweighs the differences in my book.
Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 6:13AM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Otherwise, they are dedicated to games like Marvel Diceless
Really? I really thought it had some great potential but I think the built in mechanical death spiral and sense of innevitability it could induce was pretty much counter genre...something I worked on for it. www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/murpg/
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 7:26AM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I almost always DM so it's not as big an issue of deciding to play in a game or not. I hope perhaps with 5e I might try out a campaign as a player (maybe online).
I agree that a good DM can really make a big difference with any system.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 6:02PM
#69
|
|
|
I saw some questions about spell descriptions and 'fuzziness' up above. I prefer weird, 'normal language' spell descriptions, rather than mathematical formulae and restriction of spells to only the simplest of effects. This can occasionally cause confusion when, as another poster said, the DM and the Player have different, perhaps equally valid, opinions of what the spell does and how it does it.
My solution is to, at the moment a Player adds a spell to his sheet, pull out the text of the spell and look it over with him, and come to an agreement not just on what the spell does, but more importantly how the spell does it. This agreement is used as the basis for future rulings on what, exactly, happens when the spell is cast in odd situations. I put a note in my PHB, and it's available for the future.
That works for me.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 7:07PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I saw some questions about spell descriptions and 'fuzziness' up above. I prefer weird, 'normal language' spell descriptions, rather than mathematical formulae and restriction of spells to only the simplest of effects. This can occasionally cause confusion when, as another poster said, the DM and the Player have different, perhaps equally valid, opinions of what the spell does and how it does it.
My solution is to, at the moment a Player adds a spell to his sheet, pull out the text of the spell and look it over with him, and come to an agreement not just on what the spell does, but more importantly how the spell does it. This agreement is used as the basis for future rulings on what, exactly, happens when the spell is cast in odd situations. I put a note in my PHB, and it's available for the future.
That works for me.
I agree but I would reword it this way. As DM I am the arbiter of reality in this fictional universe. When you "learn" a spell, I'd advise you to test it out. Test it all you want and I'll tell your character what happens.
Mines an in game explanation but the net effect is the same.
|
|
|
