Normally, Armalia would sit and take a breather before they headed into more trouble. Now, she looks at the dirty, musty floor and swallows hard as she thinks of all the dead things that have been sloughing off skin and other nasty things onto the floor. She grips her axe tightly with both hands, her eyes darting to every sound that doesn't seem to come from her party (although most of those sounds are from her group too).
She shakes her head sadly as Riardon prepares to go through. "Nice knowin' ya, boyo. Anybody we need to contact if'n ye don' come back? Next of kin as it were?"
Encounter Powers [X] Action Point [_] Second Wind [_] Dwarven Resilience [_] Minor Resurgence [X] Power Strike
[_] Power Strike
HP: HS: AC: Fort: Ref: Will:
Base 50 18 21 18 13 12
Current 50 17
Temp: 0 hp Surge:12 hp Init: +2 Speed: 5
Resist: none Saves: +5 against poison MBA: +10 vs. AC, 1d12+9 Stances: * Berserker's Charge: +2 Power bonus to both speed & attack when charging * Poised Assault: +1 Power bonus to attack
Riardon squeezes through the tunnel, and ends up in a dark place. On the positive side, he isn't immediately attacked either.
Shedding some Light on the situation, the eladrin finds himself in the middle of what could only be described as a nest — probably the ghoul's, if he had to hazard a guess. It's constructed of bits and pieces of what were probably past victims, and to be perfectly honest is fairly disgusting.
Poking around what remains, Riardon collects an armful or two of Items of Interest™, and can eventually make his way back to the others when ready.
• 1000 sp • 100 gp • ebony raven statuette (250 gp) • Bloodthread Cloth Armor +1 (from Riardon's list) — +1 cloth armor. — While Bloodied, +2 (item) to AC & Saving Throws. • Map of Unseen Lands (DM's pick) — Daily (Standard): The map will draw a 10-mile radius map of surface features, accurately (if not in full detail). Will include general terrain, large (5000 sq ft) structures, structures important for travel, lairs of significantly threatening creatures, and locally well known feature names and similar information. — Property: +2 (item) to Nature & Perception checks for navigating through mapped area.
• 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.
Wil is shocked when Riardon so willingly volunteers to crawl into the tight space alone, but he refrains from commenting. He sits against a wall to recuperate. This place's influence on them is ever more plain... What about me? How can I tell? Is it simply not affecting me at the moment? ... Now that I think of it, I was uncharacteristically testy earlier. Yesterday?
Wait... The flow of time here shifts and bends -- even runs back on itself, perhaps. Time is... meaningless. We're stuck in here for a length of time we can't know; we're not even ourselves; we don't know what we're really facing; who can even say what the world will have become -- what we will have become -- when we get out of here?
Wil observes his companions as the true horror of their current situation dawns on him. When Riardon emerges safely, he breathes a sigh of relief, but thoughts on the Shadowfell's nature continue to haunt him.
Arcana +10, History +10, Endurance +8, Insight +7, Athletics +6, Religion +5, Acrobatics +2, Dungeoneering +2, Heal +2, Nature +2, Perception +2, Stealth +2, Thievery +2, Bluff +0, Diplomacy +0, Intimidate +0, Streetwise +0 Adventurer's Scion: Wil can reroll a monster knowledge check but must take the result of the second roll.
Minor Action, Close burst 2 Target One creature in burst Effect Wil marks the target. The target remains marked until he uses this power against another target. If he marks other creatures using other powers, the target is still marked. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
If the marked target makes an attack that doesn’t include Wil as a target, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls. If that attack hits and the marked target is within 10 squares of Wil, he can use an immediate interrupt to reduce the damage dealt by that attack to any one creature by 7.
Standard Action, Longsword +10 vs. AC Target One creature Hit 1d8+5 damage, and if the target is adjacent to Wil at the start of his next turn and moves away during that turn, it takes 1d6+2 thunder damage. Critical +1d6 damage
Standard Action, Longsword, Ranged 3 +7 vs. Fortitude Target One creature Hit 1d6+5 lightning damage, and Wil pulls the target to the nearest unoccupied space adjacent to him. Critical +1d6 damage Special If Wil cannot pull the target to an adjacent square, this power fails and deals no damage.
Free Action Effect Wil can use this power when making a Strength attack, Strength check or Strength-based skill check. He may use his Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma modifier in place of his Strength modifier to determine the result of the roll.
Minor Action, Close burst 3 Target: Wil and one of his allies in the burst or two allies in the burst. Effect: Each target teleports into the other's space. Both targets must occupy the same size space, or the power fails.
Immediate Interupt, Ranged 10 +7 vs. Will Trigger: An enemy hits one of Wil's allies with a melee attack. Target: The triggering enemy Hit: Wil teleports the target 5 squares. The target then makes its melee attack against a creature Wil chooses. This attack deals an extra 2 damage on a hit. If no creatures are within range of the target, the attack is expended.
Minor Action, Burst 10 Target One enemy in burst Effect The target receives the Mark of the Raven Queen until the end of the encounter. During Wil's turn, one damage die against that target may be rerolled; if part of an area or close attack with multiple targets, this reroll only affects damage to the target with the mark of the Raven Queen. []Raven Queen's Shroud JauntShow
Minor Action Effect Wil teleports adjacent to the target bearing the mark of the Raven Queen.
Standard Action, Personal Effect Wil spends a healing surge to regain hit points and gains a +2 bonus to all defenses until the start of his next turn.
Standard Action, Longsword, Close burst 1 +10 vs. AC Target Each enemy in burst Hit 1d8+5 damage, and the target is marked until the end of Wil's next turn. Until the mark ends, if the target makes an attack that does not include Wil as a target, it takes 4 force damage after the attack is resolved. Additionally, if a target marked by this power hits a creature within 10 squares of Wil with an attack that does not include him as a target, he can use an immediate interrupt to reduce the damage dealt by that attack to any single creature by 2. Critical +1d6 damage
Free Action, Personal Trigger: Wil succeeds on a monster knowledge check against a monster that he can see or hear. Effect: If Wil's check result meets or exceeds the hard DC for the monster's level, he gains a +4 power bonus to all defenses against the monster's attacks until the end of his next turn. Additionally, until the end of his next turn, he gains a +4 power bonus to damage rolls against the target, but not when he deals damage that the target resists. If Wil's check result does not meet or exceed the hard DC, his attacks against the target deal only half damage until the end of his next turn.
Standard Action, Longsword, Close Burst 2 +7 vs. Will Target Each enemy in burst Hit 1d8+5 psychic damage, and the target cannot make opportunity attacks or shift (save ends). Critical +1d6 damage Miss Half damage, and until the end of Wil's next turn, the target cannot make opportunity attacks or shift.
When Riardon comes back from the tunnel he's wearign the red robe. "I found this lovely robe in there. I hope no one minds, it looked like it would fit me quite well, and as you can see it does!" He then shows the group the rest of the things he found, the gold, silver, statue, and map.
Once everyone has had a good look at the items he continues, "Shall we head down the stairs now?"
You go down the flight of stairs and through a double door, into another stairwell, one which is two-wide and spirals down, deep down into the earth. You travel for some time until it ends. You step out into a room which is cloaked in darkness, the floor covered in a thick carpet of some sort.
Ahead of you looms a set of large double doors; you can tell by the light coming in through the cracks, miniscule beams of light which give you enough to see some features of the room by. Another set of double doors is to your left, bathed completely in darkness. To your right, the doors have fallen from their hinges (naturally or by force, you can't tell offhand), revealing a hall leading into darkness, punctuated by a beam of light which crosses it from elsewhere.
Unintelligible chanting can be heard, both through the doors ahead and through the opening to the right. A faint vibration can be felt in the walls, though it is probably dampened by the rug beneath your feet. Death is thick in the air, so thick you can smell it and taste it.
Other Stuff: • Bravura Presence – When you spend an AP for an attack, declare before the attack roll if you're using this feature (Antsy, LOS). If you hit, you get a free Basic Attack or Move. If you miss, you grant CA until eont. • Shield the Fallen - Bloodied and/or Helpless allies adjacent to Armalia get +2 to saves and to all defenses. • Rune of Protection (when active) - Adjacent to Flint, get Resist 2 All. • Rune of Destruction (when active) - Get +1 to attack when attacking enemy adjacent to Flint.
Despair Deck: • Antsy: Haunted — -4 penalty to All Defenses against Charm or Fear powers; this effect does not get discarded at an extended rest. (Training in Arcana gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Armalia: Phobic — -1 penalty to All Defenses. (Training in Intimidate gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Flint: Covetous — Cannot flank (or help to flank) an enemy. (Training in Thievery gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Nefertiti: Drowsy — Cannot make Opportunity Attacks; this effect does not get discarded at an extended rest. (Training in Perception gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Riardon: Delusional — -2 penalty to AC; this effect does not get discarded at an extended rest. (Training in Nature gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Wil: Indomitable Spirit — You do not have any despair effects until the next extended rest. • Splug: Insomnia — Healing Surge Value is halved; this effect does not get discarded at an extended rest. (Training in Nature gives a bonus to the save against this effect.)
• 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.
Riardon strains his eyes to better see into the room. Not having much success he holds up his orb and whispers, "Light for me" and light springs forth from the globe.
Encounter Powers [X] Action Point [_] Second Wind [_] Dwarven Resilience [_] Minor Resurgence [X] Power Strike
[_] Power Strike
HP: HS: AC: Fort: Ref: Will:
Base 50 18 21 18 13 12
Current 50 17
Temp: 0 hp Surge:12 hp Init: +2 Speed: 5
Resist: none Saves: +5 against poison MBA: +10 vs. AC, 1d12+9 Stances: * Berserker's Charge: +2 Power bonus to both speed & attack when charging * Poised Assault: +1 Power bonus to attack
Other Stuff: • Bravura Presence – When you spend an AP for an attack, declare before the attack roll if you're using this feature (Antsy, LOS). If you hit, you get a free Basic Attack or Move. If you miss, you grant CA until eont. • Shield the Fallen - Bloodied and/or Helpless allies adjacent to Armalia get +2 to saves and to all defenses. • Rune of Protection (when active) - Adjacent to Flint, get Resist 2 All. • Rune of Destruction (when active) - Get +1 to attack when attacking enemy adjacent to Flint.
Despair Deck: • Antsy: Haunted — -4 penalty to All Defenses against Charm or Fear powers; this effect does not get discarded at an extended rest. (Training in Arcana gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Armalia: Phobic — -1 penalty to All Defenses. (Training in Intimidate gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Flint: Covetous — Cannot flank (or help to flank) an enemy. (Training in Thievery gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Nefertiti: Drowsy — Cannot make Opportunity Attacks; this effect does not get discarded at an extended rest. (Training in Perception gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Riardon: Delusional — -2 penalty to AC; this effect does not get discarded at an extended rest. (Training in Nature gives a bonus to the save against this effect.) • Wil: Indomitable Spirit — You do not have any despair effects until the next extended rest. • Splug: Insomnia — Healing Surge Value is halved; this effect does not get discarded at an extended rest. (Training in Nature gives a bonus to the save against this effect.)
• 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.
Antsy is not happy about not being able to see where they are going. Riardon's light does a little make him feel better, but he activates his own shield anyway, not liking the darkness at all. Bad things came for you in the dark, and you couldn't see them to run away. MechanicsShow
