Community

Six inch tall pixie, using a sling (shot, not whirling one). Uses pebbles as ammo (can barely call them pebbles. Smaller than pebbles, considering her size). On cart with rest of team, running next to a ravine from a spirehorn (styracosaurus) behemoth, with five shortbow weilding orcs on it, all barreling at top speed. Pixie, turn 2 of round 1, uses flattening shot. For those who don't know, 2W + Dex mod damage, and you push the target 1 square and knock it prone. The target was the spirehorn.....

And your point is ... ?

His point is that somebody did something cool in a game and he came here to share it.  This is a D and D board after all.  Should be a safe place to talk about a D and D game when something cool happens.  Don't worry though... You guys will soon teach him his place.

Try to imagine what happened. Visualise it.

Growlin, I take it the forums aren't the freindliest places for this?

Nov 11, 2012 -- 8:24PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Try to imagine what happened. Visualise it.

Okay, done.

Now what?

Well here's where you'd laugh at a massive behemoth being sent back, the rear lurching forward because where else is that end gonna go at that speed, and the five orcs flying through the air, limbs flailing. Not a fan of slapstick?

The power did what the power is supposed to do.  Not seeing a problem.

Especially since, if the orcs were riding the thing, they would have simply remained riding it:
  Forced Movement: If the mount is pulled, pushed, or slid, the rider moves with it.

So, the pixie hit the spiretail in the eye, which startled it, and made it back away for a moment.  Where's the issue?

Dude, seriously? I just explained what happened. Yes, according to the rules they should have stayed on. Know what's better? Flying orcs. I combined forced movement with prone, because the game is supposed to be fun, and this was the perfect opportunity for that. I mean seriously dude?

Sorry, I mistook your meaning.  I was anticipating this to be another 'I can't believe this game lets a tiny creature knock a large creature back and prone, it's so unrealistic, 4e sucks' thread.

Is that... common? I've played both, and kinda freaking hate 3e. I like some aspects, sure, and have brought in a few from that, and ADND. Imean YES, its kinda unrealistic. If I stab you, 99% chance I'm peicing your armour. I don't care what it is. Hide is not going to stop my spear. Ever. No not neven if you roll. Still on it? Fine, spear's on fire and now so are you. But it's a game, so... it lets hilarity happen sometimes. Seriously, people complain about that, instead of finding it absolutely hilarious?

No matter. So no, I love 4e. Funny?

Nov 11, 2012 -- 8:50PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Is that... common?

Not so much anymore, but they have been.  The number of people who flip their crap and scream 'you can't knock a snake prone' or 'a halfling with a dagger can't push a gigantic red dragon or prone it' used to be all over the damn place.

(Kicks a snake over.) Prone.

(Midget pushes building and knocks it on its ass.) Funny.

That said, yeah I can see that. I heard the uproar from people. Is 4e perfect? Naw. Was 3e? HELL NO! Once again, i stab you with a flaming spear, and you're wearing hide. Your AC wins? No it doesnt. Not in reality. You're both impaled and screaming while you burn, me holding you up and chuckling. (This might actually be how someone kills an opponent, but only because they're already dead and it adds atmosphere. Or is cool.)

I mean here's what happeed to the first werewolf. First, it was not a book wolf, it was a "curse" one, so not sentient. Made up? Yep. Do I care? Anyway, the pxie blinded it while we were in the cemetary. What would it normally do? Try to run as best it can. Sadly for it, it couldn't see the tombstone, so ran full sprint into it. Now, according to the rules nothing should happen. Most of the time you follow the rules to the letter so battles don't just fall apart. Other times... well it was round 3.

And besides, were people against houserules? Don't the books outright tell you to USE houserules? If they wanted to toss in size limitations for affecting stuff like that, well, again, houserules. There are freaking rules for houserules!

I'm not trying to be discouraging, but I will be blunt.

Threads usually have a goal, either explicitly expressed or heavily implied.  They are usually started to discuss topics, express feelings, to inform, to ask for help, or to entertain.  And the goal of the thread helps to frame the discussion and give the thread purpose and direction.

A little prompting goes a long way towards stir a discussion thread into a productive direction.  You started this thread with a very short, random anecdote and a goal to vague to be identified.  So it should be no surprise that your first response was request for additional prompting.  Even saying something to the effect of "I'd like to share this funny thing that happened in our last game," would had garnered you a more favorable initial response.


So, yeah.  Interesting story.

I figured I wouldn't have to. That people would pick up on it. I mean, to me it's obvious that thw ehole thing was meant as just something funny, to share some joy. And no, he wasn't prompting for more info, just my opinion, really, on if 4e sucks or not, as he said.

Push powers are fun.
Dwarf shield con-fighter.
Got the nice feat & item set up. lvl23 Encounter power Colossal Strike.
Fought on a landing on a massive mountain trail. Hit, 4d10+27 & push 8... Oh, it falls 300 squares.
Action point and Mountain Breaking Blow. 3d10+27, push 4, and... oh, it falls 300 squares. Well, that's my 2 or the 6 monsters.

Sadly, yes, there are a number of people here who don't appreciate subtly.
There are a number of people who are hostile.
There are a number of people who troll.
And there are even some who fit all 3.

Not everyone is an equine's rump, but there seem to be a lot.

Nov 11, 2012 -- 10:55PM, NickTyrong wrote:

I figured I wouldn't have to. That people would pick up on it.

The written word is a silent medium.  Some subtleties in communication and intent can get lost with the lack of context, non-verbal gestures, inflection and so on.  And that's on top of the fallible nature of human communication and all that it entails.  So it helps to make your intent a bit more explicit than you would otherwise.  While your implied intent may be obvious to you, your readers have no choice but to infer from the information you give.

Nov 11, 2012 -- 10:55PM, NickTyrong wrote:

And no, he wasn't prompting for more info, just my opinion

Salla's first post did.

Nov 11, 2012 -- 7:51PM, Salla wrote:

And your point is ... ?

Which, frankly, what I was wondering before I even read the rest of this thread.  Short stories like your have been used as the framing device for all sorts of different thread goals.  So I too was wondering where you were going with it.

The reaction to this thread makes me sad.  Nick, not everybody will be as negative as those who managed to respond first on this thread.  I enjoyed your story.  Please don't let the reaction you received discourage you.

Nick,

Welcome by the way.  I too enjoyed the game-play that you described.  And I took it for what it was, a cool thing that happened in a Dungeons and Dragons game that someone thought was cool enough to report to other fellow D & D players.


I used to come on here with similar anecdotes, but not really anymore.  There are a lot of great people on here, but there are a prolific few who make it a point of raining on parades.  I'm not neccessarily saying that that is what happened here (get your back down Salla), but folks have become so defensive and territorial on here, it has sucked a lot of the fun out of the place.


You have to look at it like this:  Go ahead and post what you're gonna post.  There will be those regulars who will poke and provoke at WHATEVER you say. But in there somewhere, you'll get a response or two from a kindred mind.  Just ignore the chaff; harvest the wheat. 


Regarding houseruling... God forbid that you take the books advice and do that.  Ask the guy who recently came on here with a cool beholder story.        

@Fireclave, Salla's point was asking if I ahted 4e, not for more info on the story itself.

@Wrecan, actually Salla wasn't being mean. I mean he WAS, but not in the way I thought at first. He assumed I was saying it's dumb that a tiny can push a large. He switched it up.

@Growlin, again, Salla's fine, dude! He was worried  was just saying 4e sucked becasue it allowed this. He said it was funny after I clairified that. Really the only one ding any raining by repreatedly bringing it up is Fireclave....

And beholder story? OO! Link me?

Here ya go: Beholder Story

Nov 11, 2012 -- 8:45PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Dude, seriously? I just explained what happened. Yes, according to the rules they should have stayed on. Know what's better? Flying orcs. I combined forced movement with prone, because the game is supposed to be fun, and this was the perfect opportunity for that. I mean seriously dude?

Yeah Salla isn't friendly and most of her/his comments should just be ignored.

Actually most people on ths forum aren't friendly... Most friendly 4e players are playing 4e.

He h ehe. Nice story. Really the beholder could still attack with anything other than teeth, IE tentacles, for obvious reasons, but still funy. Do the rules say certain things? Yes, and again, normally you just follow them so rights don't fall totally apart, like SO many did before in other versions. But sometimes, when the time is right, someoe does something that DEMANDS a house rule for that point. Arbitrary? A little. But the ladder in that case stretched 8 squares over 3, one square across. Lay it in the middle,only tentacles can attack. And the ebholder can't move past the ladder if a) they lied down atop it, which they did, and b) it counts as a physical conjuration, which I can see it technically being, being a ladder. One could make the argument tha it only effects allies and the conjurer, that only htey can touch it, but that imples that te conjurer can choose who uses it. So then the conjurer claims the beholder as an ally, even though he's shooting it, thus it prevents movement. It's jsut sometimes, for the prefect situation, you houserule.

Nov 12, 2012 -- 11:11AM, Felorn wrote:

Nov 11, 2012 -- 8:45PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Dude, seriously? I just explained what happened. Yes, according to the rules they should have stayed on. Know what's better? Flying orcs. I combined forced movement with prone, because the game is supposed to be fun, and this was the perfect opportunity for that. I mean seriously dude?

Yeah Salla isn't friendly and most of her/his comments should just be ignored.

Actually most people on ths forum aren't friendly... Most friendly 4e players are playing 4e.

Including yourself, of course.

Well, I like to think that there a lot of people here who come and read posts and just don't enter the fray.  Like what was said... Most 4E lovers are out playing the game, not living on these forums.

Nov 12, 2012 -- 11:39AM, Salla wrote:

Nov 12, 2012 -- 11:11AM, Felorn wrote:

Nov 11, 2012 -- 8:45PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Dude, seriously? I just explained what happened. Yes, according to the rules they should have stayed on. Know what's better? Flying orcs. I combined forced movement with prone, because the game is supposed to be fun, and this was the perfect opportunity for that. I mean seriously dude?

Yeah Salla isn't friendly and most of her/his comments should just be ignored.

Actually most people on ths forum aren't friendly... Most friendly 4e players are playing 4e.

Including yourself, of course.

I wouldn't call myself unfriendly, just blunt.

And atleast my posts aren't asinine, and sarcastic. It seems as if you beg for negativity. Even your signature does.

To defend Salla, the OP posted his story with no other comments, and Salla merely asked what his point was.  I to was confused by the post as it did not seem to have a point, and really was not very descriptive.

Get that pixie a set of Gauntlets of the Ram. See what happens to push attacks then.

You know, I tend to prefer to let people come to the punchline of a joke like that on their own... but time and again I'mt aught I should not leave peopel to their own anything....

Serious people in a serious thread.

Here's John McCain with a pancake on his head.

Nov 11, 2012 -- 8:45PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Dude, seriously? I just explained what happened. Yes, according to the rules they should have stayed on. Know what's better? Flying orcs. I combined forced movement with prone, because the game is supposed to be fun, and this was the perfect opportunity for that. I mean seriously dude?

That sounds hysterical.

Sadly this forum has kinda been under heavy attack from a bunch of trolls recently, and some people have gone into hostile-defensive mode as a result.  The moderators have cleaned up some of the trolling, but certain trolls are still posting merrily away... so yeah.

A bit of bunker mentality, which happens on forums far too often (I don't know why, but to a certain sort of teenage mindset, "forum invasions" are fun and cool).

On behalf of everyone who enjoys funny improv, that sounds amazing. 

Ah trolls. I hate the death penalty... but would support it fully for trolls.

Nov 12, 2012 -- 1:21PM, Baphogoat wrote:

To defend Salla, the OP posted his story with no other comments, and Salla merely asked what his point was.  I to was confused by the post as it did not seem to have a point, and really was not very descriptive.

Same here.   I thought it was an amusing story, but as I read it, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop.   I felt that there had to be some agenda, some criticism that the OP was trying make through the use of an anecdote.

I don't feel it's just this board that makes readers like this, it's the internet.   No offense intended.

Welcome Nick.

Nov 13, 2012 -- 8:29AM, NickTyrong wrote:

Ah trolls. I hate the death penalty... but would support it fully for trolls.

What is considered a troll? From what I've seen people tend to classify Trolls as people that have different opinions than them, and tends to be blunt with their opinions, and express them freely. Does being brutally honest really need the death penalty? And opinions are made to be expressed freely.

It was a gernaly insult to trolls. Also no, Swampdog, there was nothing meant by it. No critisism, not even an anectdote. Just something funny. I mean I honestly did not think I needed to explain how the Styracosaurus flipped, sending all the orcs flying in a very humourous way, all because of something smaller than a pebble. Not a complaint, or critisism. JUST funny. WHY do people KEEP complaining about it?

Nov 13, 2012 -- 2:24PM, NickTyrong wrote:

It was a gernaly insult to trolls. Also no, Swampdog, there was nothing meant by it. No critisism, not even an anectdote. Just something funny. I mean I honestly did not think I needed to explain how the Styracosaurus flipped, sending all the orcs flying in a very humourous way, all because of something smaller than a pebble. Not a complaint, or critisism. JUST funny. WHY do people KEEP complaining about it?

I agree with you it was a funny story.  

All I meant was that it is very unusual (at least on these boards) for a poster to put up a story like that without a reason other than "A funny thing occurred during our game."    If such is a post is done, it usually has a thread title or intro stating such.

When you begin a post by simply telling an anecdote, I think it's a natural reaction to try to determine the point of the anecdote while reading it.   It's like someone comes up and starts telling you a joke without first saying "Here's a funny joke..."    It's gonna take a bit for it to sink in to the listener that you are telling a joke.

Apple the Hyper Gladiator Ninja Pixie would have to agree with this silliness.
Of course, nobody says it's silly to his face, as he has a very nice Spartan Boot he would like to show to anyone who days defy his wrath.

State of the forums must really suck, then. For years beforehand, when people tried to get me to try the game I was always told not to come on the forums. People STILL warn me. Evidentally it was or a reaon.

   A panda walks into a diner, sits at the counter, and orders a sandwich.
After eating the sandwich, he carefully wipes his mouth and fingers with a napkin before calmly pulling out a gun and blowing away the other six customers in the diner. He then puts away the gun and strolls casually toward the door. As he passes by the hysterically screaming waitress, she manages to choke out the question, "But...but... Why???"
 The panda wordlessly hands her a dictionary, bookmarked at the page containing the word "panda".
 The entry reads, "Panda - noun. A large black and white mammal of Asian origin. Eats, shoots, and leaves."

Eats, shoots, and leaves.

 As a completely written medium, the internet isn't inherently capable of conveying many nuances of spoken communication, particularly tone of voice. In order to convey those sorts of nuances, one must operate within the limits of punctuation, sentence structure, syntax, and word choice, as those are the tools available.

 "So yeah, that happened."

 As a thread title, this could be taken several ways. Clearly, there was an event that you felt was worth bringing up, but in the body of the post you don't actually tell us anything about your motivations or reasons for bringing it up. Was it positive, as in,"hell yeah, did you see that?" Or was it negative, as in, "So this thing happened, and I'm not happy with it..."?
 Personally, as phrased, I felt it gave a somewhat negative connotation... "So yeah - pause - that happened... (And I think I feel the need to say something about it)."

 The rest of the post simply lists facts. Clearly these facts are presented in a manner meant to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. Given that the first three or four sentences are dedicated to pointing out the miniscule size of the pixie and their weapon and ammunition, and then listing a specific power and its damage and effects, one gets the impression (if one assumes a negative connotation of the post's title) that you apparently feel there's some discrepancy or disconnect between the two. This leads the reader to the conclusion that you take issue with the fact that a foot-tall pixie with a slingshot and a grain of sand took out an orcish war party riding on a dinosaur with one shot...
 On these forums, generally when someone makes a post with a somewhat leading title and then presents an anecdote without commenting on it, it's a sign that the poster expects the rest of the forums to "get it", i.e., come to the same conclusions/feel the same way as they did. It's a somewhat confrontational style of posting, actually. This is compounded by the large number of posts put up when the pixie was originally released by angry forumites who disputed the designers' decision to favor simple and workable racial mechanics over an adherance to the verisimilitude of the game world's "physics" - to wit, pixies weren't restricted to tiny low-damage weapons, inability to wear heavy armor because of weight limits on flight and massive physical penalties compared to medium-sized creatures.

 To be honest, if your original post's title had read, "So yeah that happened..." or "So yeah that just happened", without the comma, it would have come across with a more neutral connotation. Removing the word "so" from it would give it an even more positive spin - "Yeah, that just happened." Adding an emoticon in the title would also have gotten your intention across more clearly. (In the future, you might want to consider making liberal use of the emoticons available on this forum.)


On a further pixie-related note, the visual image of a foot-tall pixie grappler fighter or other defender physically throwing medium-sized opponents around the room might be immensely entertaining, but it's literally possible in 4E - in fact, it's actually an immensely effective mechanical character concept.

I liked your story. I also liked Zathris' picture of John McCain. That is all.

Was the pixie named David, by chance?

one of the players rolls a new character to join an on-going campaign.  Plays a halfling cavalier, lawful good, wants to become a knight, rides a horse.  First quest the party does he goes to get the reward for the party (he had good charisma) and as the merchant hands over the bag of gold the player stops him. 

"No reward is necessary my lord, only that of a good deed accomplished and knowing we have helped someone in need !"

I busted out laughing and the rest of the players all facepalmed.

Madjack, are you giving that panda story as an example of how NOT to do it, or how TO do it, because if it's how NOT to do it, it was freaking funny. Yes, it took me a moment to think about it.... So?

And come on people! Fine, some of you weren't able to understand what I was saying. I get it. How many times has that been said, now? And I'm done being nice about it. Not MY fault that YOU couldn't grasp it. Now, instead of taking it as my taking my time to explain the situation, making each point a sentence so that you had a moment to process/visualise, you instead just bitch about how confusing it was. Seems many DID in fact understand it. Just because YOU weren't smart enough is not MY problem, ESPECIALLY after all this time.

Again, I now see why people have told me to avoid these forums....

Nov 13, 2012 -- 7:48PM, Mad_Jack wrote:

A panda walks into a diner

That reminds me of another anecdote:
In 3.5 I created a were-panda PC that used a reach weapon (using the were-bear template, which had a large hybrid form). The party then learned that enlarge person worked on were-Pandas... resulting in a huge-sized panda threatening a 70 foot wide circle (i.e. the entire battlefield). At 1st level. Luckily the DM decided that this abomination would not continue to level 2.

(mcdonald's toy that was used as a huge miniature)

Nov 14, 2012 -- 1:41PM, mvincent wrote:

 At 1st level. Luckily, the DM decided that this abomination would not continue to level 2.

The DM had to make that call?

I have a 4E character build, the Crazy Cat Lady, that in the latest version has three pets at level 1. And gets more later. Plus spells that summon creatures.

No way would I play this character long-term. MY call.

Nov 14, 2012 -- 1:11PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Madjack, are you giving that panda story as an example of how NOT to do it, or how TO do it, because if it's how NOT to do it, it was freaking funny. Yes, it took me a moment to think about it.... So?

And come on people! Fine, some of you weren't able to understand what I was saying. I get it. How many times has that been said, now? And I'm done being nice about it. Not MY fault that YOU couldn't grasp it. Now, instead of taking it as my taking my time to explain the situation, making each point a sentence so that you had a moment to process/visualise, you instead just bitch about how confusing it was. Seems many DID in fact understand it. Just because YOU weren't smart enough is not MY problem, ESPECIALLY after all this time.

Again, I now see why people have told me to avoid these forums....

I wouldn't advise you to avoid these forums.

I suggest learning to communicate better.

Nov 14, 2012 -- 6:10PM, warrl wrote:

The DM had to make that call?

Naw. I would've made the call had he not (even though the other players were enjoying it, as they were the ones casting enlarge on me). It was just a humorous anecdote, s'all. Why ya gotta be so negative?

Nov 14, 2012 -- 6:33PM, hydralisk wrote:

I suggest learning to communicate better.

That statement sounded jerky. Which can make folks less receptive.

Nov 15, 2012 -- 10:09AM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 6:33PM, hydralisk wrote:

I suggest learning to communicate better.

That statement sounded jerky. Which can make folks less receptive.

I thought the same thing.  And oh what sweet irony...

Nov 11, 2012 -- 8:24PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Try to imagine what happened. Visualise it.

The Pixie hit the dinosaur in the eye, causing it to trip over its own legs and crash.

I love when my players come up with creative ways to use their powers.  So I enjoyed this story.  It was a fun visual.  Good job to the player who thought of using their powers creatively.  When you have a group like this, you'll have great stories that you can laugh about for years.  Good job to you too, as a DM.  Finding ways to make the players wild ideas work and having fun with the encounter is the way to go.  I know some DMs who would get all upset and start rules lawyering so that their precious encounters weren't defeated.  It takes the fun out of the game. 

Nov 15, 2012 -- 10:09AM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 6:33PM, hydralisk wrote:

I suggest learning to communicate better.

That statement sounded jerky. Which can make folks less receptive.

Unless they like good, chewy, flavorful dried beef.

Nov 16, 2012 -- 8:14AM, Mand12 wrote:

Nov 15, 2012 -- 10:09AM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 6:33PM, hydralisk wrote:

I suggest learning to communicate better.

That statement sounded jerky. Which can make folks less receptive.

Unless they like good, chewy, flavorful dried beef.

Beef? Who uses beef? ELK!!! or better still, ELF.

I restrained myself from commenting further. The statement made rather proved the point about the state of these boards.
Mostly, I use them for rules clarification and Play-by-Post games. 

Nov 14, 2012 -- 10:51AM, Noctaem wrote:

one of the players rolls a new character to join an on-going campaign.  Plays a halfling cavalier, lawful good, wants to become a knight, rides a horse.  First quest the party does he goes to get the reward for the party (he had good charisma) and as the merchant hands over the bag of gold the player stops him. 

"No reward is necessary my lord, only that of a good deed accomplished and knowing we have helped someone in need !"

I busted out laughing and the rest of the players all facepalmed.

Oh what a glorious opportunity for roleplay.  I would have had the merchant play right along, and then come by later and meet with the rest of the party.  

"Sir Knight may be satisfied knowing he did a good deed, but I feel a great deal safer knowing that he will be properly outfitted, and I'm sure his fellows might appreciate some coin.  I am a businessman, and I appreciate a good relationship with those who do honest work to aid me."  

The saga of the knight who refused pay and the very amused merchants and other people who covertly paid the party behind his back would be epic. 

"I Call the Knights share!"

Nov 16, 2012 -- 8:14AM, Mand12 wrote:

Nov 15, 2012 -- 10:09AM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 6:33PM, hydralisk wrote:

I suggest learning to communicate better.

That statement sounded jerky. Which can make folks less receptive.

Unless they like good, chewy, flavorful dried beef.

I see what you did there, well played.

Nov 15, 2012 -- 10:54AM, YoungOnce wrote:

Nov 15, 2012 -- 10:09AM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 6:33PM, hydralisk wrote:

I suggest learning to communicate better.

That statement sounded jerky. Which can make folks less receptive.

I thought the same thing.  And oh what sweet irony...

what's the irony?

Sounding like a Jerk makes people less receptive, getting your message accross to your audiance is the goal of communication, ergo "Sounding like a Jerk" is "Poor communication".

But that really only applies to those who hold to the obsolete social contract of "lets all be nice to each other and not offend anyone, participation trophies for everyone, yay!". Which is ironic in itself because it offends the rest of us who understand that telling the truth in a nice manner is as likely to not get the point across as being blunt or rude is. It's also a hypocritical belief if you ever try to force it on others or even just point it out, as was done above because pointing out to someone, that isn't your child, that they are being rude is possibly the rudest thing you can do; I'm paraphrasing Ms Manners there.

Nov 17, 2012 -- 1:48PM, hydralisk wrote:

Nov 15, 2012 -- 10:54AM, YoungOnce wrote:

Nov 15, 2012 -- 10:09AM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 6:33PM, hydralisk wrote:

I suggest learning to communicate better.

That statement sounded jerky. Which can make folks less receptive.

I thought the same thing.  And oh what sweet irony...

what's the irony?

That I deliberately used incorrect english ("jerky", and an incompletely second sentence) in my previous response. This reply also contains irony.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:37AM, Zathris wrote:

that really only applies to those who hold to the obsolete social contract of "lets all be nice to each other and not offend anyone, participation trophies for everyone, yay!". Which is ironic in itself because it offends the rest of us who understand that telling the truth in a nice manner is as likely to not get the point across as being blunt or rude is.

My apologies if I offended you

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:10PM, GreyICE wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 10:51AM, Noctaem wrote:

one of the players rolls a new character to join an on-going campaign.  Plays a halfling cavalier, lawful good, wants to become a knight, rides a horse.  First quest the party does he goes to get the reward for the party (he had good charisma) and as the merchant hands over the bag of gold the player stops him. 

"No reward is necessary my lord, only that of a good deed accomplished and knowing we have helped someone in need !"

I busted out laughing and the rest of the players all facepalmed.

Oh what a glorious opportunity for roleplay.  I would have had the merchant play right along, and then come by later and meet with the rest of the party.  

"Sir Knight may be satisfied knowing he did a good deed, but I feel a great deal safer knowing that he will be properly outfitted, and I'm sure his fellows might appreciate some coin.  I am a businessman, and I appreciate a good relationship with those who do honest work to aid me."  

The saga of the knight who refused pay and the very amused merchants and other people who covertly paid the party behind his back would be epic. 

Oh yes, it was a totally great roleplay by the player on his first session.  Sir Knight and the merchant + merchant guild became great GREAT friends ! ;D

He also roleplayed how his fellow halfling had rejected him and kicked him out of his village because of his good deeds and sometimes excessive prowess in the hunting / capture of escaped chickens ! 

Nov 19, 2012 -- 12:34PM, Noctaem wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:10PM, GreyICE wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 10:51AM, Noctaem wrote:

one of the players rolls a new character to join an on-going campaign.  Plays a halfling cavalier, lawful good, wants to become a knight, rides a horse.  First quest the party does he goes to get the reward for the party (he had good charisma) and as the merchant hands over the bag of gold the player stops him. 

"No reward is necessary my lord, only that of a good deed accomplished and knowing we have helped someone in need !"

I busted out laughing and the rest of the players all facepalmed.

Oh what a glorious opportunity for roleplay.  I would have had the merchant play right along, and then come by later and meet with the rest of the party.  

"Sir Knight may be satisfied knowing he did a good deed, but I feel a great deal safer knowing that he will be properly outfitted, and I'm sure his fellows might appreciate some coin.  I am a businessman, and I appreciate a good relationship with those who do honest work to aid me."  

The saga of the knight who refused pay and the very amused merchants and other people who covertly paid the party behind his back would be epic. 

Oh yes, it was a totally great roleplay by the player on his first session.  Sir Knight and the merchant + merchant guild became great GREAT friends ! ;D

He also roleplayed how his fellow halfling had rejected him and kicked him out of his village because of his good deeds and sometimes excessive prowess in the hunting / capture of escaped chickens ! 

I would give some bonus xp to that guy for turning down a reward for RP reasons, especially if the rest of the party gave him crap for it

Nov 11, 2012 -- 8:50PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Is that... common? I've played both, and kinda freaking hate 3e. I like some aspects, sure, and have brought in a few from that, and ADND. Imean YES, its kinda unrealistic. If I stab you, 99% chance I'm peicing your armour. I don't care what it is. Hide is not going to stop my spear. Ever. No not neven if you roll. Still on it? Fine, spear's on fire and now so are you. But it's a game, so... it lets hilarity happen sometimes. Seriously, people complain about that, instead of finding it absolutely hilarious?

No matter. So no, I love 4e. Funny?

Sadly, I'm one of those that is hating on the whole size thing. It's funny, but I don't really allow it in my campaigns. No Pixie Barbarians, lol. I pretty much have decided that if a character is small or tiny, they shouldn't be playing a martial melee character, or even a primal melee really. I know that it's lame, I just like a little bit of realism.

One time, I was playing this Halfling Storm Sorcer and we had taken over a pirate ship. As soon as we start to steer the thing, our DM rolls a die and laughs maniacally. He had brought a random encounter of a Kraken on our level 11 party. First round, the Kraken brings up six tentacles, our wizard banishes one to a demi-plane because our DM wouldn't allow him to do it to the whole thing, and I had the sorcerer use Furious Bolts (Chain Lightning) and crit on three of the tentacles. Because the damage to each tentacle was more than 1/6th of the Kraken's health, they blew up. Our rogue then jumps in the water and somehow throws a shuriken at the Kraken, crits and tacks on 5 ong. psn., another 5 ong. psn., and 10 ong. untyped. The Kraken was dead in a round. The DM was mad that we got so lucky on rolls. He thought it would kill some of us because my character can't swim, and our minotaur warden was burdened with loot, lol.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Ithrowarockatit wrote:

if a character is small or tiny, they shouldn't be playing a martial melee character

No halfling rogues?

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:54PM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Ithrowarockatit wrote:

if a character is small or tiny, they shouldn't be playing a martial melee character

No halfling rogues?

I don't even want to talk about how broken rogues are in 4e. There are effects they do that don't even make sense. I like them, though. Out of 5 rogues I've seen, they have all been shuriken or crossbow rogues. Rogues don't have a ton of problems with pushing and such, so they're not bad in this category as far as melee goes. I think what I would do in that case is make house rules for certain powers based on enemy size. (e.g.: if a monster is two size category sizes bigger than you, a bullrush is ineffective without combat advantage)

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:54PM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Ithrowarockatit wrote:

if a character is small or tiny, they shouldn't be playing a martial melee character

No halfling rogues?

there are even halfling exclusive fighter feats...one of them give them the equal to heavy shield when using a versatile weapon in 2 hands... and another gives them untype 2/3/4 damage rolls with such weapons...I once made a heavy blade halfling rogue mc into fighter, she hitted like a truck with her longsword, had ALOT of bonus vs oportunity attacks (Artful Dodger + Racial Bonus + Heavy Blade Expertise), could move thru enemy spaces that are larger than her and had defender level AC...

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:41PM, mexrage wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:54PM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Ithrowarockatit wrote:

if a character is small or tiny, they shouldn't be playing a martial melee character

No halfling rogues?

there are even halfling exclusive fighter feats...one of them give them the equal to heavy shield when using a versatile weapon in 2 hands... and another gives them untype 2/3/4 damage rolls with such weapons...I once made a heavy blade halfling rogue mc into fighter, she hitted like a truck with her longsword, had ALOT of bonus vs oportunity attacks (Artful Dodger + Racial Bonus + Heavy Blade Expertise), could move thru enemy spaces that are larger than her and had defender level AC...

Exactly. Fun, but doesn't really make sense. As I said, I like that sort of thing because it's funny, I just don't allow it in my campaigns. Just a decision I made one day.

Granted, I'm open to interpretation. I always abide by the rule of "if you can explain it to the DM's satisfaction, you can totally do it." 

Halfling paladin is superior. Plate armor and a heavy shield for a max move of 3. Woop woop!

Heavy Shield doesn't reduce Speed.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Ithrowarockatit wrote:

 Exactly. Fun, but doesn't really make sense. As I said, I like that sort of thing because it's funny, I just don't allow it in my campaigns. Just a decision I made one day.

Granted, I'm open to interpretation. I always abide by the rule of "if you can explain it to the DM's satisfaction, you can totally do it." 

Players and the PCs are not there to please the DM... you are probably among the worst kind of DM if you think they have to.

Lol, you misunderstand. What I mean is that the DM is the storyteller, and it is their world, so they make the final decision on whether or not something happens. What the player suggests has to be checked with the universe. Otherwise you can have someone say, "my halfling fighter is actually a space alien, spontaneously combusts, and grows to large when he wants," and the DM would have to let it happen.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Ithrowarockatit wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:41PM, mexrage wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:54PM, mvincent wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Ithrowarockatit wrote:

if a character is small or tiny, they shouldn't be playing a martial melee character

No halfling rogues?

there are even halfling exclusive fighter feats...one of them give them the equal to heavy shield when using a versatile weapon in 2 hands... and another gives them untype 2/3/4 damage rolls with such weapons...I once made a heavy blade halfling rogue mc into fighter, she hitted like a truck with her longsword, had ALOT of bonus vs oportunity attacks (Artful Dodger + Racial Bonus + Heavy Blade Expertise), could move thru enemy spaces that are larger than her and had defender level AC...

Exactly. Fun, but doesn't really make sense. As I said, I like that sort of thing because it's funny, I just don't allow it in my campaigns. Just a decision I made one day.

Granted, I'm open to interpretation. I always abide by the rule of "if you can explain it to the DM's satisfaction, you can totally do it." 

I gotta say, in a world with magical elf wizards and dragons and such I don't care much about what is "realistic", it is all about the fun. Reality is a source of inspiration and a starting point, but lets not get carried away. Pixie fighters are FUN, so let the players do it. If they want to create the character with powers and whatnot that are hard to narrate that's their issue. I'd think they'd go for the most plausible and amusing options.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 8:19AM, Ithrowarockatit wrote:

Lol, you misunderstand. What I mean is that the DM is the storyteller, and it is their world, so they make the final decision on whether or not something happens. What the player suggests has to be checked with the universe. Otherwise you can have someone say, "my halfling fighter is actually a space alien, spontaneously combusts, and grows to large when he wants," and the DM would have to let it happen.

That's why there are rules there, is used as mediator between DM and players.

Nov 11, 2012 -- 7:43PM, NickTyrong wrote:

Six inch tall pixie, using a sling (shot, not whirling one). Uses pebbles as ammo (can barely call them pebbles. Smaller than pebbles, considering her size). On cart with rest of team, running next to a ravine from a spirehorn (styracosaurus) behemoth, with five shortbow weilding orcs on it, all barreling at top speed. Pixie, turn 2 of round 1, uses flattening shot. For those who don't know, 2W + Dex mod damage, and you push the target 1 square and knock it prone. The target was the spirehorn.....

Dude, that was a hilarious story. I imagine the orc in the front getting up and turning to his buddies and saying, "So yeah, that happened."

I normally chill in the D&DN boards, but I decided to see what people post on this board (since I like 4e and stuff). I laughed even harder when you were trying to explain it to Salla (a very stern pony, I have observed. Not bad, but stern). 

Anyway, I feel like it'd be fun to roll some dice at your table. Those kinda' fun antics are one of my favorite parts of D&D.