|
1 year ago ::
Mar 05, 2012 - 10:23PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Personal feelings of logic notwithstanding the reality of the 4e rules is that all you need to damage someone with a magic missile is line of effect (LOE) and not line of sight (LOS). So no, you cannot shoot through walls and yes, you can just hit people by knowing they are there without actually seeing them provided you have LOE. I see no real room in the 4e rules for a DM to claim any ambiguity on this topic and as such it should not (personal preference: cannot) really be treated any differently within DME. The weapliment thing is just all kinds of silly though and depends on interpretation and the "if the rules do not tell me this combination of rules do NOT interact like this then it MUST be allowed" form of reasoning. Within DME that is free game for a shutdown. One best provided upfront though as no player likes finding out mid game their toys don't work  . edit: oh and as others like MwaO have stated, a full DME shutdown of anything is best left as a last resort. Dealing with this stuff through social means is much preffered and tends to create less annoyment all around.
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;
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 12:57AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2005
|
If the DM feels that any particular thing needs to be nerfed,
but it is outside of strict DME, one idea is to allow the thing,
but then use DME to make the adventure harder otherwise.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 2:05AM
#23
|
|
|
Its when common sense and logic get thrown out the window because a player wants to power game for his own selfish ego or start rules lawyering.
Am I allowed to laugh at this statement when applied to this particular discussion (magic missile not requiring line of sight)? I fail to see how common sense and logic would sway this argument either way since we are talking about a spell that has no base in real life and "clearly" has a target seeking device build in 
Anyway, joking aside, as others have said, there is little doubt about the fact that this is not how the 4e rules work. Having said that, simply confronting the DM about such a ruling and showing our statements from these forums, will not solve the issue. In fact, chances are that it will just worsten it. My advice, politely talk with the DM outside of the game. Point out that this is not how magic missile or the stealth/pinpointing enemy rules work by the RAW and that technically* Organized Play does not allow RAW to be changed. Also try to learn why he made the ruling, because whether it is his sense of logic, irritation because of a sense of cheese or something different, knowing why will help you see his point of view, perhaps sway him and mayby make it easier to accept the ruling. In the end though, you need to consider how much the ruling affects your character, and whether it is worth a big argument. I have accepted my fair share of odd DM rulings for the sake of playing (although there is certainly a limit to what I can deal with for the sake of fun) even though the inner rules lawyer sometimes does cringe. It is the nature of the beast that is called organized play.
* I say "technically", because in all honesty, if a whole table has no problems with a particular house rule, who are we to come over and play the RPGA police? I really dislike it when people start swinging the rules-bat without thought.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 5:09AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2005
|
Its when common sense and logic get thrown out the window because a player wants to power game for his own selfish ego or start rules lawyering.
Am I allowed to laugh at this statement when applied to this particular discussion (magic missile not requiring line of sight)? I fail to see how common sense and logic would sway this argument either way since we are talking about a spell that has no base in real life and "clearly" has a target seeking device build in
Anyway, joking aside, as others have said, there is little doubt about the fact that this is not how the 4e rules work. Having said that, simply confronting the DM about such a ruling and showing our statements from these forums, will not solve the issue. In fact, chances are that it will just worsten it. My advice, politely talk with the DM outside of the game. Point out that this is not how magic missile or the stealth/pinpointing enemy rules work by the RAW and that technically* Organized Play does not allow RAW to be changed. Also try to learn why he made the ruling, because whether it is his sense of logic, irritation because of a sense of cheese or something different, knowing why will help you see his point of view, perhaps sway him and mayby make it easier to accept the ruling. In the end though, you need to consider how much the ruling affects your character, and whether it is worth a big argument. I have accepted my fair share of odd DM rulings for the sake of playing (although there is certainly a limit to what I can deal with for the sake of fun) even though the inner rules lawyer sometimes does cringe. It is the nature of the beast that is called organized play.
* I say "technically", because in all honesty, if a whole table has no problems with a particular house rule, who are we to come over and play the RPGA police? I really dislike it when people start swinging the rules-bat without thought.
target device was the joke actually. so the key is loe as opposed to los
hmm
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 5:31AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
I dont agree with you because if that the case walls and other obstructions become null and void with magic missle and the concealment rules. Auto hit becomes a little too powerful in my opinion. Ive gotten mixed reviews over this argument but the consensus seems to agree with me. Magic missle targets one creature assuming you can see it the way i perceive it.
Powers that target only creatures that you can see specifically state that. Cloud of Steel as an example has "Target: Each enemy you can see in the blast"
Magic Missle in older editions assumed you must have los. Thats why walls and obscuring spells were useful against it. 4th just nerfs all of that according to what your saying. I'm going on the notion of RAI vs RAW perception. Thats my perception or outlook, I guess to each his own.
Walls are a Line of Effect issue, not Line of Sight.
Basically, 4e is designed to make concealment generally well-defined compared to previous editions. That's a feature or a bug depending on PoV.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 10, 2012 - 8:57PM
#26
|
|
|
Every time I see someone making arguments like this (regardless of which side of the DM vs PC they appear to be on), it firmly entrenches me in the belief that 4e isn't failing because of any reason other than it was similar enough to 3.x that so many players never bothered to read the rules, and doing so is ruining the game for them and their tables. As to the topic of this thread, Hidden is the mechanic the DM needs to use if they want to avoid Magic Missiles, if you are within Line of Effect (and sometimes that's not even required), if the character knows you're there, they can target you. It's a little bit silly to be applying rules from previous editions unless it helps make the game more fun, telling a player that their power that cannot miss , did in fact just miss, is rather asinine.
As an aside: You can optimize Magic Missile various ways to meet baseline striker values (average damage at roughly 2*Level +6) but it doesn't even begin to kick off until 16th level (though I suppose it works at very low levels as well). It takes a lot more effort though. The difference between Rapid Shot Magic Missiles (not sure how you can call that "not RaI", rapid fire bolts of magic is totally cool) and, say, Rapid Shot Divine Bolts or Biting Swarm is rather an order of magnitude in terms of how much damage and effects you can pile on
"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. My Guides
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 11, 2012 - 10:14AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Every time I see someone making arguments like this (regardless of which side of the DM vs PC they appear to be on), it firmly entrenches me in the belief that 4e isn't failing because of any reason other than it was similar enough to 3.x that so many players never bothered to read the rules, and doing so is ruining the game for them and their tables.
This isn't unique to 4e. It's not that they don't read the rules, it's that the rules as written don't conform to their mental vision of what D&D should be.
At the start of 3e, you had some DMs flat-out refusing to allow rogues to sneak attack more than once per combat and with anything other than daggers, because they thought it should work like 2e's backstab.
It's not because they didn't read the rules, it's because they didn't believe the designers actually meant the literal meaning of what they read.
4e's situation is because (a) 4e's lack of precision means that the designers often don't actually intend what the rules actually say (e.g., the original version of a lot of powers that end up errata'ed), so DMs inherently either have to pick and choose which ones they take literally or accept a lot of ludicrous things, and (b) LFR does not have any central place for rules interpretation, so DMs are on their own.
In the 3e case, by contrast, there were far fewer discrete abilities that needed to be interpreted, and Living City DMs could just e-mail LC-Rules with any questions, so everyone was quickly on the same page.
The mindset was the same however. When a LFR DM's response to a wizard using a net as an implement (and using abilities that trigger on making an attack with a net) is "Well, that's technically what the rules say, but they don't really mean that...", they're repeating exactly the response that some LC DMs made in 2000 to rogues using greatswords to sneak attack.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 11, 2012 - 1:32PM
#28
|
|
|
Fair enough, there is a "hear" vs "listen" aspect involved, I should have included " and/or comprehend and acknowledge the rules"
"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. My Guides
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 11, 2012 - 5:22PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
I do not know that this argument is quite as cut and dried (or 4e vs older editions of D&D) as some posts have suggested. Within 4e foundational rules, if a power has a target that is a creature, I think the creature has to be seen, or at least known to be within a square (as versus close and area attacks). Moving into a darkness filled room, if a PC says he casts MM to damage a creature in the room, when he does not have a clue to the presence, much less location, is a foul in my book. Yes, the -5 penalty to hit does not mean anything to MM. And yes, the designers have provided various errata and updates on concealment, obscurement and MM redesigns. So I think there is still some margin for a DM decision.
As an (now) amusing counterpoint, in 3e LG days, I had a LG DM tell me my wizard could not cast a fireball into a fog filled area because I could not see any creatures. I tried explaining about differences when line of sight and line of effect applied, but to no avail.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 11, 2012 - 8:29PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2005
|
I do not know that this argument is quite as cut and dried (or 4e vs older editions of D&D) as some posts have suggested. Within 4e foundational rules, if a power has a target that is a creature, I think the creature has to be seen, or at least known to be within a square (as versus close and area attacks). Moving into a darkness filled room, if a PC says he casts MM to damage a creature in the room, when he does not have a clue to the presence, much less location, is a foul in my book. Yes, the -5 penalty to hit does not mean anything to MM. And yes, the designers have provided various errata and updates on concealment, obscurement and MM redesigns. So I think there is still some margin for a DM decision.
As an (now) amusing counterpoint, in 3e LG days, I had a LG DM tell me my wizard could not cast a fireball into a fog filled area because I could not see any creatures. I tried explaining about differences when line of sight and line of effect applied, but to no avail.
Keith
I agree wholeheartedly with you keith. But I guess 4e is much more player friendly.
|
|
|
