The enforcer goes low, twirling her flail about her in a circle at knee height. The unexpectedness of her attack allows her to catch unawares all three of the heroes engaging her, knocking their legs out from under them and dropping them heavily onto the ground. Smiling cruelly, she slams the flail down on the vulnerable Senna, knocking the fighter into next week. As she steps around the dying woman, the cold-hearted woman says, "Shoulda stayed with the winnin' side, Corporal."
Tovar: Hits, and knocks a bunch of people unconscious.
Fight or Flight: Pass
Iron Circle Enforcer: Standard: Flail Sweep — close burst 1, all creatures • Adrian: 23 vs Fort hits for 18 hp damage, and knocked Prone. Adrian is Bloodied. • Senna: 22 vs Fort hits for 18 hp damage, and knocked Prone. Senna is Bloodied. • Tovar: 23 vs Fort hits for 18 hp damage, and knocked Prone. Free: Action Point Standard: Heavy Flail @ Senna – 23 vs AC hits for 17 hp damage; Senna is Dying. Move: Shift to (J,8)
Map Notes: • Illumination: Bright Light • Doors: Doors to the cottage & outbuildings are sturdy wood (Strength:16 to break down; or, AC5, Fort10, Ref5, 20hp) • Embankment: This steep, dirt road embankment is Difficult Terrain • Furnishings: The furniture is lightly built & offers no impediment to movement - a moving character simply kicks the furnishings aside. Furnishings can be used as improvised weapons. A bed or table flipped on its side (standard action) becomes a low wall, providing cover against attacks across it. • Tree: The square occupied by the tree's trunk is impassable but provides cover. Climbing the tree requires an Athletics:10 check, and a creature up a tree gains concealment. • Wall: The fieldstone wall stands 4 feet high and provides cover against attacks that cross it. It costs 2 squares of movement to cross the wall. • Well: This 15-foot-deep well is surrounded by a low stone wall (+2 bonus to saving throw to catch yourself). Climbing out of the well is difficult (Athletics:20). • Windows: Creatures firing through the windows of the cottage have cover against attacks from the outside.
(16) Iron Circle Enforcer is a human who looks to be an elite fighter, one who focuses on inflicting pain. She's carrying a heavy flail and wearing a suit of chainmail along with a black surcoat embroidered with a red-trimmed gray circle.
(16) Spitting Drake is a reptilian beast which, as the name indicates, seems to be capable of spitting.
(16) Iron Circle Rabble are humans who look to be dime-a-dozen toughs. They're each wielding a mace and otherwise appear to be wearing normal clothing, plus a black cloack embroidered with a gray circle.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
Fr. Bartok backs away from the dirty ruffians before he chokes on their foul fumes. He'd been roughing it lately - his cuticles could attest to that - but no amount of time away from civilization could justify their breath. His main worry was that acid spitting drake. "No, doggy! That's a bad doggy! How dare you assault your betters. For shame! You will submit to me. Submit. Now, I say!" The priest glares at the drake, daring the creature snap at him or one of his own, and growls low in his throat to show the dog who is the Alpha here.
Standard: Offering of Justice vs Drake (no attack roll required) Effect: If the drake attacks Bartok or his allies before the end othe Drake's next turn, the drake takes 2d10+6 radiant damage at the end of that turn. If it does not attack during its next turn, the Drake gains 5 THP at the end of its turn.
Accurate Staff Ranged: 10 Target: One creature Attack: +9 vs Reflex Hit: 1d8+6 Radiant damage and you slide the target 1 square. Special: You can use this power as a ranged basic attack.
Accurate Staff Close Blast 3 Target: Creatures in blast Attack: +9 vs Will Hit:1d6+6 Psychic damage and the target takes a -1 penalty to all defenses until the start of your next turn.
Accurate Staff Area Burst: 1 within 10 Target: Each enemy in burst Attack: +9 vs Reflex Hit: 1d6+6 Radiant damage. Effect: Each ally in the burst gains a +3 power bonus to AC until the end of your next turn.
Accurate Staff Ranged 10 Target: One creature Effect: If the target attacks you or your allies before the end of your next turn, it takes 2d10+6 radiant damage at the end of that turn. If the target doesn't attack you or your allies before the end of its next turn, the target instead gains 5 temporary hit points at the end of that turn.
Accurate Staff Area Burst: 1 within 10 Target: Each enemy in burst Attack: +9 vs Reflex Hit: 1d6+6 Radiant damage. Effect: Each ally in the burst gains a +3 power bonus to AC until the end of your next turn.
Free Action Close Burst 1 Target: You and each ally in the burst. Trigger: You drop a non-minion enemy to 0 hit points with an invoker attack power. Effect: The targets gains temporary hit points equal to your Wisdom modifier (5).
Channel Divinity: You can only use one channel divinity power per encounter. Immediate Reaction (personal) Trigger: An enemy within 10 squares of you hits your ally Effect: Before the end of your next turn, you gain a +2 bonus to your next attack roll against the triggering enemy. Effect: You may slide one ally
Accurate Staff Channel Divinity: You can only use one channel divinity power per encounter. Close Blast: 5 Target: Each undead creature in blast Attack: +9 vs Will Hit: 1d10+6 Radiant damage, you push the creature 2 squares and it is dazed until the end of your next turn. Miss: Half damage.
Accurate Staff Close Blast: 3 Target: Each creature in blast Attack: +9 vs Fortitude Hit: 2d6+6 thunder damage and the target is stunned (save ends) Miss: Half damage, and the target is dazed until the end of your next turn. Effect: You are dazed until the end of your next turn.
+1d6 damage against enemies at full hit points (Challenge Seeking Accurate Staff) You do not provoke OA from making ranged or area attacks with a staff (Staff Expertise Feat) When Bartok hits an enemy within 3 squares with an invoker power, he gains a +2 feat bonus to AC until the start of his next turn. (Invoker Defense)
If an enemy is within 10 squares and hits an ally, Bartok will use Fr. Bartok's Righteous Indignation At Someone Laying Hands On His Servant [Preserver's Rebuke] Preserver's RebukeShow
Channel Divinity: You can only use one channel divinity power per encounter. Immediate Reaction (personal) Trigger: An enemy within 10 squares of you hits your ally Effect: Before the end of your next turn, you gain a +2 bonus to your next attack roll against the triggering enemy.
AC: 20+3 Fort: 17+3 Reflex: 14 Will: 17 HP:40/40 Bloodied Value: 20 Healing Surges Used: 0/11 Surge Value: 10 Initiative Modifier: +1 Status: * + 3 power bonus to AC / Fort EonT (Tovar) Other Relevant Information: * Earth Domain Feature: You and each ally within 5 squares gain +2 power bonus to saves vs Ongoing Damage. * +1 healing done with powers that allow an ally to spend a surge (healer's broach +1) * +5 save vs Poison * Save vs knock prone * Reduce forced movement by 1 square * Whenever Tovar hit with his hammer each ally he can see may stand up as a free action. Action Points Used: 0/1
[] Dwarven Resiliance / Second Wind [] Subterranean Survivor [][] Healing Word [] Channel Divinity [] Stone Speak [X] Earthen Hall [] Granite Shield [] Nimbus of Holy Shielding [] Shield of Faith
Standing up after the large blow, Adrian overhears the leader's remark to Senna and responds in turn. "Ha, she learned that lesson when she switched, little lady. Too bad you didn't!" With this, the nimble old man runs at the storage shed, plants a foot against the wall mid-stride and pushes himself off, leaping at his target with great speed and ferocity. The sudden attack strikes her right where it hurts, and she jumps back towards the rest of her enemies, though Adrian is quick to close in again.
Minor Action: Stand Up Move Action: Move to J-7, avoiding OAs Minor Action: Fury's Advance on Enforcer Attack: 24 vs AC Hit (Thank you, dice gods) Hit: 10 damage. Enforcer is pushed to K-9 and takes 3 damage for each adjacent enemy after the push, bringing the total to 16 damage, and Adrian shifts to K-8.
Male Good Human Hybrid Avenger|Swordmage, 3rd Lvl Theme: Sohei Deity: Corellon
Vitals: Medium, 6' tall, 175 lbs. 66 years old, hails from Harken Languages: Common, Primordial
Senses: 19 Insight, 19 Perception, Normal Vision
Encounter Powers [_] Second Wind [_] Sohei Flurry [_] Heroic Effort [X]* Oath of Enmity [_]* Aegis of Ensnarement [_] Falcon's Mark [_] Avenger's Resolve [X] Fury's Advance [_] Southern Star Ring the Bell [_] Five Stars Arrow Deflection
Daily Powers [_] Action Point [_] Aspect of Might
HP: HS: AC: Fort: Ref: Will:
Core 39 8 21 14 16 16
RndX 16 8
0 THP Surge: 9hp Init: +2 Speed: 6
Resist: none Saves: none
*In-effect* Oath of Enmity: Against enemies subject to this oath, when I make a melee attack against the target using an Avenger power or an Avenger paragon path power and the target is the only enemy adjacent to me, I make two attack rolls and use either result. Acrobat's Boots:Can stand up from prone as a minor action.
The drake slinks off behind the shed, vanishing from view, while the enforcer tries to lash out with another counterattack at Adrian, failing miserably.
Map Notes: • Illumination: Bright Light • Doors: Doors to the cottage & outbuildings are sturdy wood (Strength:16 to break down; or, AC5, Fort10, Ref5, 20hp) • Embankment: This steep, dirt road embankment is Difficult Terrain • Furnishings: The furniture is lightly built & offers no impediment to movement - a moving character simply kicks the furnishings aside. Furnishings can be used as improvised weapons. A bed or table flipped on its side (standard action) becomes a low wall, providing cover against attacks across it. • Tree: The square occupied by the tree's trunk is impassable but provides cover. Climbing the tree requires an Athletics:10 check, and a creature up a tree gains concealment. • Wall: The fieldstone wall stands 4 feet high and provides cover against attacks that cross it. It costs 2 squares of movement to cross the wall. • Well: This 15-foot-deep well is surrounded by a low stone wall (+2 bonus to saving throw to catch yourself). Climbing out of the well is difficult (Athletics:20). • Windows: Creatures firing through the windows of the cottage have cover against attacks from the outside.
(16) Iron Circle Enforcer is a human who looks to be an elite fighter, one who focuses on inflicting pain. She's carrying a heavy flail and wearing a suit of chainmail along with a black surcoat embroidered with a red-trimmed gray circle.
(16) Spitting Drake is a reptilian beast which, as the name indicates, seems to be capable of spitting.
(16) Iron Circle Rabble are humans who look to be dime-a-dozen toughs. They're each wielding a mace and otherwise appear to be wearing normal clothing, plus a black cloack embroidered with a gray circle.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
Breelana sees a soldier moving in to grapple with Tovar. She moves swiftly to the wall, summoning her sword as she goes. Seeing an opening, she charges in swinging. She braces herself for the blow she is sure will come from the other soldier as she pierces the first one's stomach with her blade. Ice forms around the wound and the skin turns black, frost covering his armor around the hole the sword made. His eyes go dull and blank as his soul is siphoned up the sword and the entity screeches with glee inside the eladrin's skull.
Map Notes: • Illumination: Bright Light • Doors: Doors to the cottage & outbuildings are sturdy wood (Strength:16 to break down; or, AC5, Fort10, Ref5, 20hp) • Embankment: This steep, dirt road embankment is Difficult Terrain • Furnishings: The furniture is lightly built & offers no impediment to movement - a moving character simply kicks the furnishings aside. Furnishings can be used as improvised weapons. A bed or table flipped on its side (standard action) becomes a low wall, providing cover against attacks across it. • Tree: The square occupied by the tree's trunk is impassable but provides cover. Climbing the tree requires an Athletics:10 check, and a creature up a tree gains concealment. • Wall: The fieldstone wall stands 4 feet high and provides cover against attacks that cross it. It costs 2 squares of movement to cross the wall. • Well: This 15-foot-deep well is surrounded by a low stone wall (+2 bonus to saving throw to catch yourself). Climbing out of the well is difficult (Athletics:20). • Windows: Creatures firing through the windows of the cottage have cover against attacks from the outside.
(16) Iron Circle Enforcer is a human who looks to be an elite fighter, one who focuses on inflicting pain. She's carrying a heavy flail and wearing a suit of chainmail along with a black surcoat embroidered with a red-trimmed gray circle.
(16) Spitting Drake is a reptilian beast which, as the name indicates, seems to be capable of spitting.
(16) Iron Circle Rabble are humans who look to be dime-a-dozen toughs. They're each wielding a mace and otherwise appear to be wearing normal clothing, plus a black cloack embroidered with a gray circle.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
Tovar moves protectively over Senna and offers a prayer, "Moradin, grant Senna the strength and fortitude to withstand this and continue to fight." With his prayers her wounds start to close up and her eyes open wide.
Tovar then turns his attention on the enforcer, "You shall not do that again," he says. "Moradin, guide my hammer and shield my allies" he calls as he swings his hammer into the enforcer with such force that it causes him to stumble back. "Now's your chance, get up" he says encouragingly Senna who then quickly scrambles to her feet.
Those nearby Tovar feel another wave of divine energy pass over them. It feels different than the last one, but still fortifying.
Minor Action:Healing Word on Senna Effect: Senna can spend a surge and gain an additional 3 hp (Bonus Healing (1d6+1=3)) Effect: Senna target takes half damage from the next attack that hits her EonT (Tovar)
Standard Action: Granite Shield vs Enforcer Attack:Granite Shield vs Enforcer (Fort Attack, Combat Advantage) (1d20+8+2=29) Most definately a hit! Damage:Granite Shield Damage (1d10+5=6) On Hit Effect: Push the Enforcer to K,7 On Hit Effect: Senna can stand up as a free action (Don't forget the free shift because Tovar is standing on top of your position) Effect: You gain an Aura 2 that lasts until the end of your next turn. You and your allies gain resist all 5 while in the aura. (Everyone but Breelana is currently in the Aura)
AC: 20 Fort: 17 Reflex: 14 Will: 17 HP:40/40 Bloodied Value: 20 Healing Surges Used: 0/11 Surge Value: 10 Initiative Modifier: +1 Status: * Granite Shield Aura(2). Tovar and his allies gain resist all 5 while in the aura Other Relevant Information: * Earth Domain Feature: You and each ally within 5 squares gain +2 power bonus to saves vs Ongoing Damage. * +1 healing done with powers that allow an ally to spend a surge (healer's broach +1) * +5 save vs Poison * Save vs knock prone * Reduce forced movement by 1 square * Whenever Tovar hit with his hammer each ally he can see may stand up as a free action. Action Points Used: 0/1
[] Dwarven Resiliance / Second Wind [] Subterranean Survivor [X][] Healing Word [] Channel Divinity [] Stone Speak [X] Earthen Hall [X] Granite Shield [] Nimbus of Holy Shielding [] Shield of Faith
The leader of the Iron Circle unit goes down to Tovar's hammer. The last remaining soldier drops his weapon and sticks his hands in the air. There's no sign of where the drake got off to, but it apparently decided that this wasn't the place to be. MechanicsShow
Tovar: Hits the Enforcer and takes her out.
Fight or Flight: • The last conscious Rabble surrenders. • The Drake autosucceeds in an escape (far enough away plus being hidden). You can pursue, if you really wish, but I suspect you won't.
Combat is over. Short rest. Also a Milestone, so everyone gains an AP, and anything else a Milestone might allow you to do.
For the record, the rules for Death Saves now only specify "rest" not "extended rest," so Senna's slate is cleared.
Map Notes: • Illumination: Bright Light • Doors: Doors to the cottage & outbuildings are sturdy wood (Strength:16 to break down; or, AC5, Fort10, Ref5, 20hp) • Embankment: This steep, dirt road embankment is Difficult Terrain • Furnishings: The furniture is lightly built & offers no impediment to movement - a moving character simply kicks the furnishings aside. Furnishings can be used as improvised weapons. A bed or table flipped on its side (standard action) becomes a low wall, providing cover against attacks across it. • Tree: The square occupied by the tree's trunk is impassable but provides cover. Climbing the tree requires an Athletics:10 check, and a creature up a tree gains concealment. • Wall: The fieldstone wall stands 4 feet high and provides cover against attacks that cross it. It costs 2 squares of movement to cross the wall. • Well: This 15-foot-deep well is surrounded by a low stone wall (+2 bonus to saving throw to catch yourself). Climbing out of the well is difficult (Athletics:20). • Windows: Creatures firing through the windows of the cottage have cover against attacks from the outside.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
