... wait, it's insulting to tell you to move along, but it's not insulting to say that anyone who's comfortable with the current state of affairs either works for Wizards or is a fanboy? You don't get it both ways. You don't get to say "I have the right to an opinion," but then get all huffy when another player says "I think you're wrong."
I think you're far too fixated on "insulting", Thanlis. Perhaps you felt what I wrote was personally directed at you. It wasn't. I'm just saying what I think is out there. Sometimes it's nicely and eloquently stated, as in zammm's (edit - 2/14 12:33 AM Eastern Time, wups; thx for the correction zamm) post, sometimes less so as in your post, but it's out there.
As far as imaginaryfriend's post - would you be kind enough to give some specific examples of what you think "DM interpretation" should include, and how the current rules should be altered (or correctly interpreted) to allow those examples to be implemented?
For my part - I think DM interpretation *is* important. People that know me personally know this is one of my favorite examples -
Level 7 solo blue dragon (has darkvision) attacks party in field at night, flying out of range and sight of most of the party, and blasting with its range 20 burst 2 power, so it can fly 21 squares above the party and attack. TPK against 90% of parties, just given an open field at night. The 10% exceptions either packed a few grasping javelins, or happened to have a lot of PCs that could reach the dragon. (Remember, the PCs don't know this is going to happen. They're on a caravan mission at level 7, and suddenly - SURPRISE!)
As far as "DM interpretation", I think it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY as far as not allowing these sorts of ridiculous encounters to get set up. But I think that sort of "DM interpretation" is not what imaginaryfriend was talking about - more, I think imaginaryfriend's understanding of "DM interpretation" was, say, when the DM resolves what happens when multiple war rings are equipped (and similar) - am I right?
The multiple war ring thing I would honestly prefer clear rules on. An extra 3d10 or 30 damage..its not such a big deal, plenty of rings that would probably have more benefit over the course of an adventure. Multiple salves of power..now there is a different story
The flying thing, well yes, its up to the DM to make sure that stays entertaining rather than become a senseless boring slaughter and it is actually a good example. We do not need rules spelling out what a DM is to do with encounters like that.
DM's interpretation as countermeasures versus relentless cheese quickly turns into social warfare, players nor DM's need that. Those situations need clarification. Its better to know for sure if blood pulse does 1d6 + 50 per square of forced movement than having to debate it. I may have my own thoughts on HOW that clarification should turn out, but either way if it is clarified I will deal with how it ends up, thats the game. Until it is clarified, it falls to D&D's catch-all mechanic. The DM. Its not perfect, but its what we have.
There is a LOT of stuff that can do with better wording or clearing up, I don't deny it and would like to see it happen sooner rather than later. I just simply do not share the belief of some vocal posters, that we need to write rules for every situation. Most stuff gets handled just fine with what we have in the rules + DM combination. Just because some people think that the lack of an explicit NO means rust monsters can be ATM's and that asking if you can damage a PC means you can ignore the answer, does not mean we need rules spelling out what is intended.
Well not to me anyway. To me it just means we need less, willful or not, idiots.
edit; oh one of my favorite examples, free actions. I think the way the rules are, is perfect. The DM decides if and/or how many free actions you get. In some situations, half a dozen free actions may be fine. In other situations it can be ridiculous ( I use the "circling the globe in 6 seconds" example). Leaving that call up to the DM saves us all from having to read a 10 page decision tree on whether a free action would be allowed in situation X.
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
I don't actually think most folks are asking for rules that cover every damn thing.
Just:
a) Existing rules should say what they mean.
and
b) Problems that pop up should be fixed when it becomes apparant there's a problem.
Every time I've suggested it, though, I get hit with "we can't make rules for every situation".
Never asked for that. Just for the situations that crop up. Which isn't actually all THAT often.
My other contention about when punishments should be applied I'm realizing is really only addressed to a couple of people that seem to be intent on placing blame somewhere.
-np
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
Level 7 solo blue dragon (has darkvision) attacks party in field at night, flying out of range and sight of most of the party, and blasting with its range 20 burst 2 power, so it can fly 21 squares above the party and attack. TPK against 90% of parties, just given an open field at night. The 10% exceptions either packed a few grasping javelins, or happened to have a lot of PCs that could reach the dragon. (Remember, the PCs don't know this is going to happen. They're on a caravan mission at level 7, and suddenly - SURPRISE!)
As far as "DM interpretation", I think it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY as far as not allowing these sorts of ridiculous encounters to get set up. But I think that sort of "DM interpretation" is not what imaginaryfriend was talking about - more, I think imaginaryfriend's understanding of "DM interpretation" was, say, when the DM resolves what happens when multiple war rings are equipped (and similar) - am I right?
There is a big difference between DMs saying "here's what I will do to monster tactics to make this more fun for the table" and "I'm sorry, at my table, this item/feat/power/etc. works in the following way." The first is absolutely allowed by the rules. There is text to that effect in each adventure. When talking to authors I am often surprised to hear they just assume all DMs will do what is needed to keep things fun (after all, this is clearly stated in the adventure boiler plate). The reality, however, is that this is not what many DMs do. We've had this discussion on these boards before. Some DMs don't believe in scaling down a fight for a table unless the encounter specifically calls for it. It is for that reason that I devote space in encounters I author or playtest to try to speak to those DMs and give them pointers on how to keep things fun.
The later, making rules decisions beyond what is a true gray area in the rules, is not supported by DME. RPGA DMs must use the printed rules / FAQ / errata / CS. Nothing prevents a DM from explaining to a player why they feel something is broken and asking the table if it would be better to apply a houserule, but the table really needs to accept (especially the impacted player). That is just how the RPGA game works. And, really, this method is very good for our game. It allows players to know what to bring to the table. Is it clear in the text or fixed in FAQ/errata/CS? If so, you know it will work at the table, whether it is reasonable or absolutely stinky cheese. You get to play the game the way you want it. At the same time, if what is being brought to the table is not working, then the table can talk about it. Either the table is fine with it (in which case no houserule is needed) or the table is not fine with it (in which case a fix can be applied). Regardless, it sends feedback to the player that this may be too strong a choice.
Additionally, as a DM, I try to keep an eye out for the fake cheese. War Rings are certainly strong, but they aren't that strong. Adding d12 (worst case) per crit or even 24 once? That isn't that insane. Usually, this is just icing on top of a cake worth of damage and crit craziness (such as the stronger offender, Bloodiron). There is no need for a houserule of War Rings at any table, IMHO. You might as well houserule Twin Strike, Daggermaster, all Paladin multi-W powers... and I sure don't recommend doing any of that! You will drive yourself crazy as a DM trying to implement fixes. I recall once an LG judge that had a page of their houserules for players when they came to their table. It was cold water to the face to receive that. I instantly lose confidence in a judge when I come to the table and instead of camaraderie or RP or some other cool emphasis what I get is their rules issues/vendettas.
The later, making rules decisions beyond what is a true gray area in the rules, is not supported by DME. RPGA DMs must use the printed rules / FAQ / errata / CS. Nothing prevents a DM from explaining to a player why they feel something is broken and asking the table if it would be better to apply a houserule, but the table really needs to accept (especially the impacted player). That is just how the RPGA game works. And, really, this method is very good for our game. It allows players to know what to bring to the table. Is it clear in the text or fixed in FAQ/errata/CS? If so, you know it will work at the table, whether it is reasonable or absolutely stinky cheese. You get to play the game the way you want it. At the same time, if what is being brought to the table is not working, then the table can talk about it. Either the table is fine with it (in which case no houserule is needed) or the table is not fine with it (in which case a fix can be applied). Regardless, it sends feedback to the player that this may be too strong a choice.
Additionally, as a DM, I try to keep an eye out for the fake cheese. War Rings are certainly strong, but they aren't that strong. Adding d12 (worst case) per crit or even 24 once? That isn't that insane. Usually, this is just icing on top of a cake worth of damage and crit craziness (such as the stronger offender, Bloodiron). There is no need for a houserule of War Rings at any table, IMHO. You might as well houserule Twin Strike, Daggermaster, all Paladin multi-W powers... and I sure don't recommend doing any of that! You will drive yourself crazy as a DM trying to implement fixes. I recall once an LG judge that had a page of their houserules for players when they came to their table. It was cold water to the face to receive that. I instantly lose confidence in a judge when I come to the table and instead of camaraderie or RP or some other cool emphasis what I get is their rules issues/vendettas.
I think I agree, but I am not entirely sure.
I have never house ruled anything in LFR (well full disclosure, I have asked people if they were ok with zero-threat skill challenges not counting towards milestones, but also made sure they knew if was fine if they did not see it that way. I am sure I have failed at making it clear once or twice.. to the people effected.. sorry? ). If something is clear in the rules then it is played as written, As I said, I may hold my own views on something and would explain why I think something is overpowered, but if there is no interpretation in the rules then it gets run how the rules say without argument
Where we may not agree however is on what is and, more importantly, is not clear. Which is the eternal argument. No need for examples, we have hundreds. As I said, I have never houseruled, but I have interpreted and made the call where needed.
Interpretation is interpretation on either end of the table, what for a player is "optimized" does not suddenly become a "houserule" if the DM applies the same kind of logic to arrive at the opposite conclusion. It just pinpoints a spot where the rules need some bondo.
I will say though that some of the logic used on either side is highly suspect IMO and while I work hard to stay aware of all the interpretation scenario's I have not yet had to use any wonky ones and have a table devolve into RAI vs RAW smackdown.
9 times out of 10 players and me will work it out. The 10th time, if its a player blocking the resolution, well I ask myself if its worth bothering the other 5 people with it, shrug, move on with the table, and steer clear of the person in future. If its me, well I must be having a bad day so I mentally smack myself on the back of the head NCIS style and move on as well
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
A dragon attacking from the air at night when players are on the ground hmm what's the big deal.
Seems like a good tatic for the dragon.
The ease that people kill dragons in 4e is a little disturbing and is mostly because the way its written they don't use good tatics.
If each player bought a longbow, one had a sunrod and they all spread out the dragon could only hit 1 person at a time, and if they have even 1 decent long ranged striker That dragon is taking more damage per round than the 1 player the dragons ae is hitting.
Even if the dragon focus fires the same person every time a reasonably balanced party can keep him healed.
Or you can reward creative thinking and let the wizard stand on the fighter's shoulders and use phantom chasm.
A dragon attacking from the air at night when players are on the ground hmm what's the big deal.
Seems like a good tatic for the dragon.
The ease that people kill dragons in 4e is a little disturbing and is mostly because the way its written they don't use good tatics.
If each player bought a longbow, one had a sunrod and they all spread out the dragon could only hit 1 person at a time, and if they have even 1 decent long ranged striker That dragon is taking more damage per round than the 1 player the dragons ae is hitting.
Even if the dragon focus fires the same person every time a reasonably balanced party can keep him healed.
Or you can reward creative thinking and let the wizard stand on the fighter's shoulders and use phantom chasm.
Teamwork in action.
Though true, it is also aggrevating, annoying, and usually boring to the players to spend an encounter using basic attacks. If the Dragon is the culmination of the module it can be very anti-climatic and if it is not the culmination it doesn't propel the player's emotionally into the culmination.
If each player bought a longbow, one had a sunrod and they all spread out the dragon could only hit 1 person at a time, and if they have even 1 decent long ranged striker That dragon is taking more damage per round than the 1 player the dragons ae is hitting.
Even if the dragon focus fires the same person every time a reasonably balanced party can keep him healed.
Hmm. Interesting hypothetical question that. Let's see - the dragon is always 22+ squares away doing its burst 2. So the sunrod doesn't help, as it only illuminates 20 squares.
The only long ranged striker option is an archer ranger (so, 1 build out of all the class options). A couple other classes can function at that range... like the seeker, prescient bards, crossbow artificers, ranged warlords... pretty scarce pickings, but certainly possible. More likely than happening to have a wizard who has phantom chasm as his prepared daily, I'm guessing, though perhaps not by much.
Many characters don't bother to carry longbows. Wizards, for instance, rarely bother - even though they have no option over 20 squares and often have few options over 10 squares. Ditto warlocks, sorcerers, etc.
But, sure, some will. I see a 6th level blue dragon so I'll compare that to a 5th level party as an average encounter. Let's say it has one archer ranger, two other longbows, and the ability to heal the ranger enough that they dragon needs to burn through 250% of its hp. A 5th ranger should have about 45, so we'll call that 113hp. The ranger's reflex is about 19. Its attack is +12/1d12+3 x2, 1d6 quarry, +2d12 crit. With the -5 for darkness and the dragon's AC 23, the ranger is looking for 16+. For an average of about 8.35 damage per round. The other people with longbow's in the group are doing, say, 1d10+2 damage and need non-critting 20s to hit, for an average of .75 per round added for both of them. Or 9.1 per round against a 296 hp critter, or 32.5 rounds of combat. If nothing goes wrong.
The dragon is dealing very little damage per round itself. 7.5 hit, 10 crit, 3.75 miss, with a 5% crit, 35% miss, 60% normal hit, so about 6.3 damage per round. Or 17.5 rounds to drop the ranger, even with 6 surges worth of healing.
Once the ranger is down, it has about 136 hp left on average - which is more than enough to win against anyone else.
And it never even descends into range that a grasping javeling can bring it down, if they're lucky enough to have one at 5th level.
And yeah, I'm sure it'd be reaaallly interesting to roll out that combat. And you'd probably want to, since a lucky string of crits from the ranger will drive the dragon off.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Difficulty and challenge is only one part of the equation.
The players need to feel engaged and useful as well.
There really shouldn't situations where the majority of the players feel helpless. "Frustrating" is a description you really don't want to hear about a fight.
It's really not fun to die and not be able to do anything about it.
The opposite is true as well. There have been a few combats that as scripted resulted in fights that were just damn tedious and time consuming. Not challenging, just annoying.
In either case, DMs need to adjust, even if that mean making that dragon do the foolish thing and drop into short range after a couple of rounds. Or maybe NOT having those extra packs of harmless but annoying time-wasting minions show up.
-np
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
