A bit of molten material oozes out of Cal's left hand, hardening into a small shield welded to his forearm. Pulling a shard of obsidian off of his shoulder into his right hand he says. "Ready Wartide, point and i'll shoot."
Play by Post Haven Stop by, join us, and sign up for some games while you are there Real Adventures Come join in and have some adventures, real ones!
Want even more Play-By-Post games? Head over to www.Nerdbound.com to check some more out. People there are playing lots of systems, not just D&D
Bharhas, Level 3 Human, Warlord | Sorcerer Human Power Selection Option: Bonus At-Will power Languages: Common, Elven Theme: Gladiator
CURRENT STATUS: Phase of the Sun: *At the start of your turn, each enemy adjacent to you takes fire and radiant damage equal to your Strength modifier. *You also gain resist 5 cold.
VITALS AC: 18 Fort: 18 Ref: 15 Will: 17 HP: 40/40
Surges: 6/6 Surge Value: 10
Initiative: +1 Speed: 6
CURRENT ABILITY SCORES STR 18, CON 10, DEX 11, INT 10, WIS 8, CHA 17
You push out the door into the blustery night, your breath suddenly steaming into the darkness.
From across afoul-smelling canal, a feminine cry of pain cuts through your ears, and you see the two ruffians from inside holding the woman up while the dwarf pummels her. The tiefling and a halfling stand by, watching.
"No, of course I don't have all the coin on me," the woman says dazedly, "it's just–" Her pleading fey eyes fix on you, and the muggers soon realize they are not alone in the alley. They let her fall in the gutter and draw steel.
Party Initiatives checked. Enemy Initiatives checked. (Note: I usually don't show enemy Init rolls, because I'll roll them all together, even if they come in waves, and I wouldn't want to spoil any surprises…. Decided to make an exception, this time.)
Wartide: Battlefront Shift - Valandra current target, but may be reassigned if needed.
• Canal: 20' drop from upper area (light gray spaces) to lower area (dark brown and green). Fall onto ground (brown): 2d10 damage. Fall into water (green): 1d10 damage. (Note one space of difficult terrain, marked by white triangle and gray rocks.)
• Rails: Spaces with "railings" (alternating light/dark squares) provide cover to attacks from across rail.
• Grating: Nothing special, but it doesn't have a rail.
• Pipe: Difficult Terrain. Provides cover to any in those spaces.
• Water: Difficult Terrain. No other benefits/penalties. Except maybe the stench.
• Bridge: Any creature attempting to move more than 2 spaces in a single action must make an Acrobatics check, DC 12. Failure: Make a saving throw — if successful, fall prone in the 2nd space; if failed, fall from bridge to available adjacent space below. If struck by critical hit, make same saving throw.
• Ladder: Difficult Terrain. Grant CA while standing on ladder space.
Other Effects of Note: • Tactical Presence: When you use an AP to make an attack while in LOS of Wartide, you get a +3 bonus to the first attack roll of that attack.
• 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.
Focused preparing her defenses, Valandra instinctually heeds Wartide's words. [primordial]Sha-karn, clear space on that far side. The tactatican says. His mind sees an the need for the barbarian to cross into their ranks as quickly as possiable.
Valandra battlefront shift to b - took the initiative.. most logical to have you take point at the bridgge. sets u up to either move 2 then charge two to prevent needing to make an athletics roll. sry if I stepped on your toes... if I did, in the future I will hold off making the move until confirmation
The halfling sends of a quick flurry of shots with his sling, raining down stones upon you. Sha-Karn is hit in the assault, but Wartide and Valandra are able to withstand the shower of ammunition.
Wartide: Battlefront Shift - Valandra shifts to (B,7)
No surprise. Encounter begins.
Halfling Slinger: Standard: Stone Rain (rech.) - makes 3 sling attacks, -2 penalty to each • Sling @ Sha-Karn - 17 vs AC hits for 10 hp damage • Sling @ Cal-Marleth - 13 vs AC misses • Sling @ Valandra - 14 vs AC misses
• Canal: 20' drop from upper area (light gray spaces) to lower area (dark brown and green). Fall onto ground (brown): 2d10 damage. Fall into water (green): 1d10 damage. (Note one space of difficult terrain, marked by white triangle and gray rocks.)
• Rails: Spaces with "railings" (alternating light/dark squares) provide cover to attacks from across rail. The rails do not hamper movement onto or off of the bridge. Nor do they hinder movement onto or off of the ledge. They only provide cover.
• Grating: Nothing special, but it doesn't have a rail.
• Pipe: Difficult Terrain. Provides cover to any in those spaces.
• Water: Difficult Terrain. No other benefits/penalties. Except maybe the stench.
• Bridge: Any creature attempting to move more than 2 spaces in a single action must make an Acrobatics check, DC 12. Failure: Make a saving throw — if successful, fall prone in the 2nd space; if failed, fall from bridge to available adjacent space below. If struck by critical hit, make same saving throw.
• Ladder: Difficult Terrain. Grant CA while standing on ladder space.
Other Effects of Note: • Tactical Presence: When you use an AP to make an attack while in LOS of Wartide, you get a +3 bonus to the first attack roll of that attack.
• 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.
Sha-karn dashes onto the bridge, clearly expecting it to be a solid construction. When it gives and sways beneath his steps, he misses a step, going down on one knee and barely catching himself from rolling off the side. Standing, he briefly balances, before snarling at the Halfling. My turn! he says, as he launches himself off the bridge, charges along the canal, and lands a devastating blow on the smaller creature.
Move: attempt to move to F7, make acrobatics check at D7 edit: correction, acrobatics check at E7 after jumping from B9 over C8 to D7 (No check needed with a running start). Acrobatics 8, fail, made saving throw to avoid falling. End movement prone in D7 E7. Standard-->Move: stand up Action Point: Charge the Halfling Slinger, moving to E7, then jumping F8 to G9 (athletics 17, needed 10 for a standing jump of 1 square), ending in H11 and attacking with Howling Strike (+4 to attack from charge and Wartide's action point benefit). Hitting AC 21 for 17 damage. I assumed that was a hit in my flavor text, I'll edit if not.
edit: forgot to alter my HP total, have updated HP and surges to reflect Wartide's healing
The adrenaline of the fight crashes into Wartide. Even as his mind is a flury of posibilities, his muscles constrict and prepare to strike. Shorty, fetch me some of that filth down there so I can force you to drink it, you scum. Propelled by years of marshal discipline and a quick step forward, the genasi launches the empty mug across the canal towards the dwarf.
The drinking vessel streaks across and strikes the dwarf right on his forehead. As the wooden mug is heard cracking apart hitting the canal floor, a large circular welt forms on the diminutive scumbag's skin. Like a bulls-eye, dead center. MechanicsShow
Minor - Inspiring Word to Sha-karn Inspiring Word bonus (1d6=1) 1HP additional while spending a healing surge (my humour not your style? ) Mover - shift to b8 Standard - Throw improvised weapon using paint the bull's eye My first pbp roll ever. No bonus due to light thrown weapon based off of dex. Ok, here goes..... (1d20=14, 1d4=3) forgot... using a power with improvised weapon doesn't change the stat it targets the power is based off of. So, +4 for using paint the bull's eye makes it AC 18... Hit!..right? and +4 damage. To recap: 18 to hit (16 with cover neg). 7 damage and target Until the start of your next turn, your allies gain a power bonus to damage rolls against the target of +4
Edit: Sha beyond range after that heroic stunt.. brovo / also, realized I didnt full state I was aiming at the dwarf. Didn't think about the halfling as another short fellow. / added dmg mod from power
Okay.. let's try to bring down the ranged support first, sounds good in this place Mara decides. She moves close to Valandra again, letting her calm flow into her, and then concentrates on the caster across the gap.
Seeing their ally get brutally injured, the humans team up and nearly take down the barbarian, bringing Sha-Karn to the brink of death.
The tiefling picks it self up, considers the magmasoul for a moment, but then sends a blast of fire at Wartide, setting the marshal's gear afire as well.
The dwarf sets its warhammer down for a moment, pulls out a throwing hammer, and launches it across the canal, slamming Valandra in the shoulder, before picking his melee weapon back up.
Sha-Karn: Did your actions as corrected per the OOC, not per what you posted in the IC. You were out of the range of Wartide's ability to heal you, so no healing surge spent or hps recovered. Hit the halfling slinger. He uses Second Chance: 22 vs AC hits him anyway; he is Bloodied.
Wartide: Paint the Bull's-Eye hits for 3 damage. Allies' bonus noted in status below.
Mara-Kai: As long as you know them, you can roll hazard damage and even Basic Attacks, no problem. Hypnotism proves to be useful.
Human Bandits: (H,5): Standard: Charge @ Sha-Karn - Move to (I,10), Mace - 17 vs AC hits for 9 hp damage & bandit shifts to (H,10). Sha-Karn is Bloodied.
(J,8): Standard: Charge @ Sha-Karn - Move to (I,10), Mace - 27 vs AC hits for 6 hp damage & bandit shifts to (I,11).
Tiefling Hedge Wizard: Move: Stand up Standard: Hedgefire @ Wartide - 19 vs Reflex hits for 9 fire damage and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends).
Dwarf Squire: Free: Drop Warhammer Minor: Wield Throwing Hammer Standard: Throwing Hammer @ Valandra - 22 vs AC hits for 8 hp damage Minor: Wield Warhammer
Cal-Marleth & Valandra may go. Note: I do a "Fight or Flight" check at the end of each round, so if you want to escape or parlay, that will be the time to do so; the enemies will consider the same. More importantly, that means that anyone at the top of the initiative order must wait for me to finish up the round.
• Canal: 20' drop from upper area (light gray spaces) to lower area (dark brown and green). Fall onto ground (brown): 2d10 damage. Fall into water (green): 1d10 damage. (Note one space of difficult terrain, marked by white triangle and gray rocks.)
• Rails: Spaces with "railings" (alternating light/dark squares) provide cover to attacks from across rail. The rails do not hamper movement onto or off of the bridge. Nor do they hinder movement onto or off of the ledge. They only provide cover.
• Grating: Nothing special, but it doesn't have a rail.
• Pipe: Difficult Terrain. Provides cover to any in those spaces.
• Water: Difficult Terrain. No other benefits/penalties. Except maybe the stench.
• Bridge: Any creature attempting to move more than 2 spaces in a single action must make an Acrobatics check, DC 12. Failure: Make a saving throw — if successful, fall prone in the 2nd space; if failed, fall from bridge to available adjacent space below. If struck by critical hit, make same saving throw.
• Ladder: Difficult Terrain. Grant CA while standing on ladder space.
(19) Dwarf Squire(medium natural humanoid, dwarf, soldier 1): Warhammer (standard) does damage; Shield Bash (minor, recharge ) does heavy damage and pushes; Throwing Hammer (standard) does damage; Stubborn (imm. interrupt) strikes at an adjacent enemy trying to push or knock him prone; Stand Your Ground (null) resists forced movement and being knocked prone. 6 < HP ≤ ? | ? < AC ≤ 18 | ? < Fort ≤ ? | ? < Ref ≤ ? | ? < Will ≤ ?
(19) Halfling Slinger(small natural humanoid, halfling, artillery 1): Dagger (standard) does damage; Sling (standard) does damage; Stone Rain (standard, recharge ) does up to 3 sling attacks; Combat Advantage (null) causes extra damage; Second Chance (imm. reaction) makes the attacker try again; Nimble Reaction (null) gives bonus against OAs; Sniper (null), when hidden, allows to remain hidden after a miss. 17 < HP ≤ 34 | ? < AC ≤ 21 | ? < Fort ≤ ? | ? < Ref ≤ ? | ? < Will ≤ ?
(19) Human Bandits(medium natural humanoid, human, skirmisher 2) 1 < HP ≤ ? | ? < AC ≤ ? | ? < Fort ≤ ? | ? < Ref ≤ ? | ? < Will ≤ ?
(19) Tiefling Hedge Wizard(medium natural humanoid, tiefling, artillery 2) 20 < HP ≤ ? | ? < AC ≤ ? | ? < Fort ≤ ? | ? < Ref ≤ ? | ? < Will ≤ 19
Other Effects of Note: • Tactical Presence: When you use an AP to make an attack while in LOS of Wartide, you get a +3 bonus to the first attack roll of that attack. • Paint the Bull's-Eye: Allies get +4 power bonus to damage vs Dwarf until Wartide's eont.
• 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.
Valandra hustles across the rickety grate into the dwarf at the far end. The first strike is a thrust carrying the weight of her momentum. This she follows with a horizontal slash leaving the dwarf off balance and unsure of his footing.
Decided to make an exception, this time.)
)
