As the elf scout goes over the side of the bridge, there's a long scream echoing upward from below, one which drops in volume and tone as a result (in part) of the doppler effect; it comes to a sudden stop, accompanied (for those with excellent hearing) by a rather sickeningly crunchy 'splat.'
Mara-Kai: Adjusted as per discussion in OOC. Beholder pushed to (G,5), Drake to (F,8), and Elf Scout 1 to (J,14). Per house-rule, since there was at least 1 more space of forced movement available, no saving throw given; Elf Scout 1 falls 50' and incurs 39 hp of falling damage and, as a result, is Deceased.
CURRENT POSITIONS! Map Notes: • Illumination: Dimly lit: All without Low-Light Vision have Concealment Penalties (-2) • Walls: Cannot be forced over edge through walls (or other furnishings). Creates Superior Cover (-5 penalty) for all attacks going through unless the attacker standing adjacent. • Bridge: Does not have railings; 50' drop down below (5d10 falling damage, and a short rest to climb back up)
(18) Beholder Runt (small aberrantbeast, elite artillery): ?
(20) Elf Scout (medium fey humanoid, skirmisher): Speed 6; Combat Advantage (trait) does extra damage with combat advantage; Elven Accuracy (free) rerolls an attack roll; WildStep (trait) ignores difficult terrain when shifting; Longsword (standard) does damage; Short Sword (standard) does damage; Two-Weapon Rend (standard) attacks the same target with both weapons, and does extra damage if both hit.
(20) Guard Drake (small natural beast, reptile, brute): Speed 6; Immune Fear (while near an ally); Bite (standard) does damage, even more when near an ally.
(21) Xeres, Fey'ri Swordmage (medium fey humanoid, eladrin, elite soldier): Speed6; Resist 5 Radiant; Saving Throws +2; Action Points 1; Offensive Warding (aura 2) damages any who are near him (and when he's bloodied, causes them problems when attacking and defending); Vicious Broadsword (standard) does some damage and moves the target; Sword Burst (standard) attacks everyone around him; Lightning Binding (standard) does damage, pulls the target close, and immobilizes them; Hellfire Spiral (standard; rech. bloodied) blows stuff up; Aegis of Striking (minor) marks and damages those who don't obey it; Fey'ri Deception (move) makes them invisible (until attack or end of next turn) and teleports 5.
Other Stuff: • Dragonling Familiar (P,8) {1} Status: Active, Can Flank with Allies; Used:Dragon's Breath • Fayne (carried by Xeres): Unconscious, not in initiative order • Tactical Presence: When in Line of Sight of Wartide, gain +2 to an attack granted by an Action Point. • Psychic Pain: (aura 1) All enemies who start their turns adjacent to the Beholder take 5 psychic damage and grant combat advantage until the start of their next turn. • Ignition: (K-M,7-9) Creatures entering or ending turns in Zone take 3 fire.
• 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.
"Moria!" Venny calls out, surprised by the scene of terror laid before them. He falls into the signature stance of the Purple Dragon Knights and rushes in to divert the foes' attention. Around the wall, he finds himself to face to face with one of the elven scouts. "I'm sorry." He says simply, and cracks the poor scout in the chin with the pommel of his sword.
Minor: enter Focused Discipline stance. Move: to N6 Standard: Ardent Strike on Elfy-Pants Attack Roll: 1d20+9=21, probably a hit, rolling in case. Damage Roll: 1d8+4=11 damage, and he is subject to my Divine Sanction until the end of my next turn. If it's a kill, he'll only knock the elf unconscious.
"Ve..Venny?"Moria stammers, as if she had just been awakened from a horrific nightmare. Her head feels as if it's going to split in two from the beholder's attack. Though her vision is blurred, she sees the knight moving out into the open. Her heart climbs its way back into her throat as her hands give off heat shimmers and her robes start to smoke. I won't fail him as well, she thinks, as her hands flare back into full flames and she picks her next target.
As the paladin approaches, the scout slashes at him with both weapons; the longsword finds an opening, but the short sword is blocked by Stalford's shield.
Vendrathon: Moving into adjacent space triggers a readied action. Afterward, he hits, but the elf is still upright. • Elf Scout: Two-Weapon Rend @ Vendrathon — Longsword (22 vs AC) hits, Shortsword (19 vs AC misses; Elven Accuracy 10 vs AC) misses, totals for 7 hp damage. Note: IIRC, you're speed is 5; the wall in (N,5) blocks diagonal movement at that point. However, you do have enough speed to move to (P,5) and then charge in, so I won't fuss about it this time, especially since I didn't explicitly say as much before. It is noted, however, now.
Map Notes: • Illumination: Dimly lit: All without Low-Light Vision have Concealment Penalties (-2) • Walls: Cannot be forced over edge through walls (or other furnishings). Creates Superior Cover (-5 penalty) for all attacks going through unless the attacker standing adjacent. Also, at the ends ((K,10) & (N,5)) they are blocking terrain for diagonal movement. • Bridge: Does not have railings; 50' drop down below (5d10 falling damage, and a short rest to climb back up)
(18) Beholder Runt (small aberrantbeast, elite artillery): ?
(20) Elf Scout (medium fey humanoid, skirmisher): Speed 6; Combat Advantage (trait) does extra damage with combat advantage; Elven Accuracy (free) rerolls an attack roll; WildStep (trait) ignores difficult terrain when shifting; Longsword (standard) does damage; Short Sword (standard) does damage; Two-Weapon Rend (standard) attacks the same target with both weapons, and does extra damage if both hit.
(20) Guard Drake (small natural beast, reptile, brute): Speed 6; Immune Fear (while near an ally); Bite (standard) does damage, even more when near an ally.
(21) Xeres, Fey'ri Swordmage (medium fey humanoid, eladrin, elite soldier): Speed6; Resist 5 Radiant; Saving Throws +2; Action Points 1; Offensive Warding (aura 2) damages any who are near him (and when he's bloodied, causes them problems when attacking and defending); Vicious Broadsword (standard) does some damage and moves the target; Sword Burst (standard) attacks everyone around him; Lightning Binding (standard) does damage, pulls the target close, and immobilizes them; Hellfire Spiral (standard; rech. bloodied) blows stuff up; Aegis of Striking (minor) marks and damages those who don't obey it; Fey'ri Deception (move) makes them invisible (until attack or end of next turn) and teleports 5.
Other Stuff: • Dragonling Familiar (P,8) {1} Status: Active, Can Flank with Allies; Used:Dragon's Breath • Fayne (carried by Xeres): Unconscious, not in initiative order • Tactical Presence: When in Line of Sight of Wartide, gain +2 to an attack granted by an Action Point. • Psychic Pain: (aura 1) All enemies who start their turns adjacent to the Beholder take 5 psychic damage and grant combat advantage until the start of their next turn. • Ignition: (K-M,7-9) Creatures entering or ending turns in Zone take 3 fire.
• 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 hustles over to Val, checking to see if he's okay. Finding his friend dead, Sha-Karn takes a moment to lay his maul down in respect beside the body and take up his friend's scimitar. "In your honor," he says testing the grip of the weapon. The genasai quietly salutes Val and then bellows and charges the nearest elf, but the unfamiliar weapon turns in his hand. But not with your skill. He promises Val that he will get better with it.
HP: 35/35 Surges: 9/9 (8) AC: 18 Fortitude: 18 Reflex: 16 Will: 13 Resist: 5 acid Vision: Normal Speed: 6 Initiative: (+1) Passive Insight: 19 Passive Perception: 19 Other Notes: Can breathe underwater (Causticsoul Feature) Whenever your attack reduces an enemy to 0 hit points, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier (2). Once per round, when you score a critical hit with a barbarian attack power, you can immediately make a melee basic attack as a free action. You do not have to attack the same target that you scored a critical hit against. Languages: Common, Primordial
[ ]Action Points: 1.0/1 .0 [ ][ ][ ] Failed Death Saves Current Status: SkillsShow
Standard Action - Melee weapon Requirement: You must be wielding a melee weapon in two hands Target: One creature. Attack: +9 vs. AC Hit: 2d4 + 1d6 + 4 damage. Special: When charging, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack. If you are raging, you can move 2 extra squares as part of the charge.
Standard Action - Melee weapon Effect: Before the attack, you shift 2 squares. You can move through an enemy's space during the shift, but you can't end there. Target: One creature. Attack: +9 vs. AC Hit: 2d4 + 4 damage, and you push the target 1 square. If you are raging, the attack deals an extra 1d6 damage.
You dissolve into a bubbling, hissing liquid and surge through your enemies. Move ActionPersonal Effect: You shift half your speed over ground or liquid terrain and through squares occupied by enemies. You must end your movement in an unoccupied square. You make the attack against each creature whose space you enter. Attack: 1d20+8 vs. Reflex Hit: 1d8 + 4 acid damage.
Trigger: An enemy adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you as a target. Immediate Interrupt: Make a melee basic attack against the target (+9 vs AC, 2d4+4 damage).
Standard Action - Melee weapon Target: One creature. Attack: +9 vs. AC Hit: 4d4 + 4 damage, and you push the target 2 squares. The target and each enemy adjacent to the target at the end of the push are slowed until the end of your next turn.
Primal, Rage, Weapon Standard Action - Melee weapon Target: One creature. Attack: +9 vs. AC Hit: 6d4 + 4 damage. Miss: Half damage Effect: You enter the rage of the thunder hooves. Until the rage ends, you can move through one or two enemies’ spaces during each of your turns. When you move through an enemy’s space, your next attack against that enemy during the same turn deals 1[W] extra damage (2d4).
Immediate Interrupt Trigger: You are hit by the attack. Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you gain resistance to all damage equal to 7 (5 + CON modifier).
Trigger: An adjacent enemy misses Wartide with a melee attack. Target: The triggering enemy Attack: +10 vs. Reflex Hit: 1d8+1 damage, and you slide the target up to 2 squares. The target grants combat advantage until the end of your next turn.
Seeing his dead companions and the newcomer charge recklessly without any form of coordination, Wartide loses a bit of his usual cool.
"Holy Barnacles! Looks like we have been burdened with young clams still wet behind the ears"
With this statement obviously directed at Vendrathon, he rushes forward like a powerful stream shield in front of him. Once within range of the elf he opens his guard and delivers a vicous upward cut with his longsword.
@Steph: I did not know what rules you have for charging around corners... if that doesn't work, and Swift Current makes it work, please use it. If that still doesn't work, I will do a double move to get in the middle of the room.
Move: to N3 Standard: Charge with Inevitable Wave to N7 targeting Elf Scout 2 in [M6] Inevitable Wave (1d20+10=29, 1d8+5=12) 29 vs AC for 12 Damage Until the end of Wartide's next turn, any ally who charges the target deals 4 extra damage.
As the second elf goes down, the guard drake rushes forward, growling and snapping at the half-elf, but unable to sink its teeth into him.
Meanwhile, the sound of something (or someone) slamming into wood can be heard across the chasm, followed immediately by the echo of some muttered curses. The double door across the bridge opens, revealing a cluttered room with tables in it. The fey'ri reappears across the room, in front of another door.
Wartide: Had to use Swiftcurrent. Also Sha-Karn was in (N,7), so you went to (N,5) instead. Hit & Killed.
Guard Drake: Move: Walk to (H,6) Standard: Charge @ Vendrathon — Move to (M,6); Bite (13 vs AC) misses.
Fight/Flight: Normally, Xeres would be doing so now, but I know you're likely to pursue, and we still have these other things to deal with, so we'll just stay in Combat Mode for the time being....
Xeres: Move: Run to (F,17), attempting to slam through door — 12 vs Moderate DC fails, movement ends. Minor: Open door. Move: Run to (C,25)
Map Notes: • Illumination: Dimly lit: All without Low-Light Vision have Concealment Penalties (-2) • Walls: Cannot be forced over edge through walls (or other furnishings). Creates Superior Cover (-5 penalty) for all attacks going through unless the attacker standing adjacent. Also, at the ends ((K,10) & (N,5)) they are blocking terrain for diagonal movement. • Bridge: Does not have railings; 50' drop down below (5d10 falling damage, and a short rest to climb back up)
(18) Beholder Runt (small aberrantbeast, elite artillery): ?
(20) Elf Scout (medium fey humanoid, skirmisher): Speed 6; Combat Advantage (trait) does extra damage with combat advantage; Elven Accuracy (free) rerolls an attack roll; WildStep (trait) ignores difficult terrain when shifting; Longsword (standard) does damage; Short Sword (standard) does damage; Two-Weapon Rend (standard) attacks the same target with both weapons, and does extra damage if both hit.
(20) Guard Drake (small natural beast, reptile, brute): Speed 6; Immune Fear (while near an ally); Bite (standard) does damage, even more when near an ally.
(21) Xeres, Fey'ri Swordmage (medium fey humanoid, eladrin, elite soldier): Speed6; Resist 5 Radiant; Saving Throws +2; Action Points 1; Offensive Warding (aura 2) damages any who are near him (and when he's bloodied, causes them problems when attacking and defending); Vicious Broadsword (standard) does some damage and moves the target; Sword Burst (standard) attacks everyone around him; Lightning Binding (standard) does damage, pulls the target close, and immobilizes them; Hellfire Spiral (standard; rech. bloodied) blows stuff up; Aegis of Striking (minor) marks and damages those who don't obey it; Fey'ri Deception (move) makes them invisible (until attack or end of next turn) and teleports 5.
Other Stuff: • Dragonling Familiar (P,8) {1} Status: Active, Can Flank with Allies; Used:Dragon's Breath • Fayne (carried by Xeres): Unconscious, not in initiative order • Tactical Presence: When in Line of Sight of Wartide, gain +2 to an attack granted by an Action Point. • Psychic Pain: (aura 1) All enemies who start their turns adjacent to the Beholder take 5 psychic damage and grant combat advantage until the start of their next turn. • Ignition: (K-M,7-9) Creatures entering or ending turns in Zone take 3 fire.
• 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.
Moria sees the drake try to savage Venny. All the emotions roiling through her -- disgust at herself for attacking a living thing, horror at the deaths of the genasi, shame at having messed up her first real job -- all close in and the ball of fire flies wide. Taking a deep breath as she was trained to do when her focus is unclear, she then calmly and deliberately sends the great orb of fire towards the already roasting drake. It howls with pain and Moria flinches.
The beholder floats forward, it's eyes ranging about for targets. It settles upon Sha-Karn and Vendrathon, as rays shoot from it eyes assaulting their wills. Sha-Karn is dazed by the attacks, and both feel weakened.
Beholder Runt: Move: Fly to (K,7) Minor: Jaundiced Central Eye @ Sha-Karn — 15 vs Will hits and gives Sha-Karn vulnerable 5 psychic (runt's start of next turn), and if he takes psychic damage while having it, Sha-Karn is dazed. Standard: Eye Rays (x2) @ Vendrathon & Sha-Karn — • Psychic Agony Ray @ Vendrathon: 16 vs Will hits for 11 psychic damage and is Weakened (save ends). • Psychic Agony Ray @ Sha-Karn: 23 vs Will hits for 11 psychic damage, +5 for Vulnerable is 16, & Sha-Karn is Dazed until Beholder's start of next turn as well as Weakened (save ends).
Map Notes: • Illumination: Dimly lit: All without Low-Light Vision have Concealment Penalties (-2) • Walls: Cannot be forced over edge through walls (or other furnishings). Creates Superior Cover (-5 penalty) for all attacks going through unless the attacker standing adjacent. Also, at the ends ((K,10) & (N,5)) they are blocking terrain for diagonal movement. • Bridge: Does not have railings; 50' drop down below (5d10 falling damage, and a short rest to climb back up)
(18) Beholder Runt (small aberrantbeast, elite artillery): ?
(20) Elf Scout (medium fey humanoid, skirmisher): Speed 6; Combat Advantage (trait) does extra damage with combat advantage; Elven Accuracy (free) rerolls an attack roll; WildStep (trait) ignores difficult terrain when shifting; Longsword (standard) does damage; Short Sword (standard) does damage; Two-Weapon Rend (standard) attacks the same target with both weapons, and does extra damage if both hit.
(20) Guard Drake (small natural beast, reptile, brute): Speed 6; Immune Fear (while near an ally); Bite (standard) does damage, even more when near an ally.
(21) Xeres, Fey'ri Swordmage (medium fey humanoid, eladrin, elite soldier): Speed6; Resist 5 Radiant; Saving Throws +2; Action Points 1; Offensive Warding (aura 2) damages any who are near him (and when he's bloodied, causes them problems when attacking and defending); Vicious Broadsword (standard) does some damage and moves the target; Sword Burst (standard) attacks everyone around him; Lightning Binding (standard) does damage, pulls the target close, and immobilizes them; Hellfire Spiral (standard; rech. bloodied) blows stuff up; Aegis of Striking (minor) marks and damages those who don't obey it; Fey'ri Deception (move) makes them invisible (until attack or end of next turn) and teleports 5.
Other Stuff: • Dragonling Familiar (P,8) {1} Status: Active, Can Flank with Allies; Used:Dragon's Breath • Fayne (carried by Xeres): Unconscious, not in initiative order • Tactical Presence: When in Line of Sight of Wartide, gain +2 to an attack granted by an Action Point. • Psychic Pain: (aura 1) All enemies who start their turns adjacent to the Beholder take 5 psychic damage and grant combat advantage until the start of their next turn. • Ignition: (K-M,7-9) Creatures entering or ending turns in Zone take 3 fire.
• 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.
Trigger: An adjacent enemy misses Wartide with a melee attack. Target: The triggering enemy Attack: +10 vs. Reflex Hit: 1d8+1 damage, and you slide the target up to 2 squares. The target grants combat advantage until the end of your next turn.
"It looks like we are getting into bad waters! Hang on Sha-Karn! And let's take this drake down before we focus on this floating octopus" Shouts the water Genasi as he shifts further into the room and swings at the Drake.
Sorry for short fluff, hectic household here and I did not want to miss my turn this time...
Minor: Inspiring Word on Sha-Karn to regain 1 Surge + 6hp Inspiring Word (1d6=6) Move: Shift to M5 Standard:Intuitive Strike on Guard Drake [M6] Intuitive Strike (1d20+10=14, 1d8+1=5) 14 vs Will for 5 Damage Hit: Until the start of my next turn, the next ally who attacks the target and has combat advantage against it gains +2 power bonus to the attack roll.
of course I roll crappy now that we are going in the right order...
of course I roll crappy now that we are going in the right order...