• Please post your finalized character sheet as a reply in this thread. Until everyone else has posted their characters, please refrain from posting any other replies. Once all 5 have posted, you may use this thread for any OOC questions, topics, strategies, plans, etc.
• If you can, please post a copy of the character summary sheet (like I posted preliminarily here). If there's another format you prefer (like the iplay4e links), you may do those as well, but I prefer the first type for my own reference. Other things related to the character: wishlists, pictures, backgrounds, other notes, etc, please feel free to keep them in the same post. These are what I use to know your character, so anything you can add would probably help immensely.
• IC thread is here. Once you have posted in this thread, you may begin to RP in that one. Once everyone has posted here, I will push things forward there.
• Once everyone's posted here, I'll also cover a couple of ground-rules and things which y'all will need to sort out; but it's nothing that can't wait until then, so… we'll deal with it then.
• 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.
Car-Maleth is one of a fiery temper. He angers reather quickly but Wartide tends to be able to cool him off quick enough. He is a very large Genasi, probably topping 300 lbs. He is oddly proportioned due to his demon parentage. Car is not tall but is wide, almost a cube. He flows from one place to another. In desperate times he is not able to hold the heat in and he begins to burn all that he touches.
His face is always a pitted black with glowing red-orange lines. In his hand he holds a shor rod of obsidian that he occasionaly eats and the regurgitates a new one. As long as he holds the rod the back of his other forearm hardens into a shield of opaque obsidian.
He genarally goes without clothes, prefering to harden his internal magma into concealing armor. When he moves more then a few feet he exudes a thick balc smoke that makes it har for his enemies to target his bilk.
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
Wartide - Favorite Quotes (also group benefits to be mindful of)Show
"Push yourself past the reef to become focused." - When using an Action Point to make an attack, if you can see Wartide, you gain a +3 bonus to the Attack Roll
"Fate rests on the first pawn's move." - When we roll initiative, Wartide or one other within 15ft of Wartide, can shift half their speed. How this power is used will be determined by what surfaces to Wartide's mind when initiative is posted, but I will really appreciate pre-encounter discussion on how it can be used so that I have knowledge to guide my judgement.
Wartide is a watersoul splashing around with a trident, longsword, and shield. His mind is a swirling whirpool of tactical posibilities (tactical presence + Imp. Tactics = +3 to AP attacks ). From this chaos he is able to see how one move at the start of combat (battlefront leader) is going to affect the ultimate life or death struggle. From the onset he leads the group in reeling in the biggest fish (paint the bulls eye) and stands at the front lines with his allies. When pray is caught in the net of flanking, he makes sure it's a matter of shooting fish in a barrel (Intuitive Strike). When him and his allies finally encounter the great white whale, he'll Lead the Attack, inspiring his allies to strike true. And it never fails, at least once during the furry of every combat, he tries to unleash an attack to grant his comrade in arms a favorable opening (warlod's favor = 25% bonus to an ally's attacks against the target that was hit) that can turn the tide.
Wartide has few friends in the city of Waterdeep. He wasn't popular at the academy and after he washed out, not a single classmate would acknowledge he exists. He never fitted in and he resented his merchant father for moving his family to the coastal city in the first place. Having falling in with a few other genasi that he now calls friends, he's itching to make a name for himself. He wants to show the stuck up instructors that one does not need to lick boots to be a successful warlord of the battlefield.
Footwork Lure (At-Will): martial, weapon Long Sword: melee 1; +9 vs AC, 1d8+4 damage and shift 1 square and slide the target 1 square into the space you left.
Tide of Iron (At-Will): martial, weapon Long Sword: melee 1; +9 vs AC, 1d8+4 damage and push the target 1 square if it is size S,M or L and shift into the space that the target occupied.
Steel Serpent Strike (Encounter): martial, weapon Long Sword: melee 1; +9 vs AC; 2d8+4 damage and the target is slowed and cannot shift until the EONT.
Comeback Strike (Daily): martial, weapon Long Sword: melee 1; +9 vs AC; 2d8+4 damage and you can spend a healing surge.
Minor Actions Earthshock (Encounter) Close burst 1; Enemies in burst that are touching the ground; +6 vs Fortitude; Target is knocked prone.
Triggered Actions Combat Challenge (At-Will) You mark each target you attack. Whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack that does not include you as a target, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy.
Combat Superiority (At-Will) Trigger: An enemy adjacent to you takes an action that triggers provokes an opportunity attack. Effect: Make a melee basic attack with a +3 attack bonus. If the attack hits any movement from that action is stopped.
Takedown Strike (Encounter): martial Trigger: When hit an adjacent enemy. Effect: Add 4 extra damage to the triggering attack and the target is knocked prone.
Free Action Use Action Point (Encounter): Spend an action point and gain one additional standard action this turn. You must have an available action point to use this power.
Valandra keeps to herself. She leads a cold, calm, passionless existence. Rigid self discipline rules her life and her profession. She keeps her equipment in immaculate condition; spending the time after each battle to remove every dent and polish each blemish.
Social interaction is difficult. When it comes to persuasion she is better as the stick that complements the carrot. She prefers to be a strong silent presence; the subtle but never mentioned threat that is at times a necessity in certain negotiations. In the past, her contracts have been negotiated by others. But always by people close to her whom she trusts.
: You can breathe underwater. You also gain resist 5 acid and the acid surge power. At 11th level, the resistance improves to 10 acid. At 21st level, the resistance improves to 15 acid. Acid SurgeShow
Acid Surge
You dissolve into a bubbling, hissing liquid and surge through your enemies.
EncounterAcid 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: Strength + 3 vs. Reflex, Constitution + 3 vs. Reflex, or Dexterity + 3 vs. Reflex Level 11: The bonus on the attack increases to + 6 Level 21: The bonus on the attack increases to + 9
Barbarians connect with the natural world in a variety of ways. Some barbarians grow so hardened to physical punishment that they find it easier to simply absorb, rather than avoid, attacks. Others are living examples of the power of one’s will to shape one’s fate. Choose one of the following options. The choice you make gives you the benefit described below and also provides bonuses to certain barbarian powers, as detailed in those powers.
Rageblood Vigor You gain the swift charge power. In addition, whenever your attack reduces an enemy to 0 hit points, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier. The number of temporary hit points equals 5 + your Constitution modifier at 11th level and 10 + your Constitution modifier at 21st level.
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. ---
Gladiator, Benefit: You gain the Disrupting Advance power. Disrupting AdvanceShow
Disrupting Advance
With an attack followed by a violent shove, your enemy flies backward. As it flails for balance, it loses its footing and stumbles into the creatures around it.
EncounterMartial, Weapon Standard ActionMelee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Primary ability vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + ability modifier 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. Level 11: 3[W] + ability modifier damage. Level 21: 4[W] + ability modifier 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.
You push lesser foes from your path, moving through the lines of battle at will.
At-WillPrimal, Weapon Standard ActionMelee 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: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target 1 square. If you are raging, the attack deals 1d6 extra damage. Level 21: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
You hammer the enemy with a heavy blow, and the spirits of stampeding beasts fill you with strength.
DailyPrimal, Rage, Weapon Standard ActionMelee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier 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.
(lvl 4, 840 gp) Item Slot: Neck Enhancement: Fortitude, Reflex, & Will Power (Daily): Imm. Reaction. Trigger: You are hit by a close or area attack. Effect: An adjacent enemy of your choice is included in the attack.
--Item set: Foci of the Apprentice (2 items)
Property: You gain a +2 item bonus to saving throws against any effect with the charm, or illusion keyword. The pieces can be on different characters. Both characters gain the benefit if within 5 squares of each other.
Potion of HealingMaul Hide Armor Javelin x3 Adventurer's Kit Climber's Kit Wealth: 8 gp ---
Abrupt, brash, and impatient, Sha-karn carries himself with a restless energy that seems to seethe just beneath his skin. His tall, well muscled frame might be attractive to those willing to overlook the sickly green hue of his skin, his unruly hair, and the sag to the left side of his face that makes his eyes slightly lopsided and gives him a permanent sneer. Sha-karn wears sturdy homespun beneath his hide armor, and cares rather more about the gleam on the head of the massive hammer he wears on his back than any detail of personal grooming. ---
Exiled from his community by the abyssal taint in his manifestation, Sha-karn was raised by Tholin, a dwarven gladiator, adventurer, and friend of his mother. Drawn to the few other Genasi in the city, Sha-karn was particularly close to Mara-kai, who is also tainted, and fellow warriors Valandra and Wartide. Two years ago, Tholin failed to return from one of his frequent excursions. Sha-karn is determined to discover his fate, but finds himself low on the funds necessary to properly investigate the disappearance. When he hears rumors of a nobleman looking to hire a team of adventurers, he turns to his companions for aid.... ---
At-Will - Primal, Weapon Standard Action - Melee weapon Requirement: You must be wielding a melee weapon in two hands Target: One creature. Attack: +6 vs. AC Hit: 2d6 + 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. ---
At-Will - Primal, Weapon 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: +6 vs. AC Hit: 2d6 + 4 damage, and you push the target 1 square. If you are raging, the attack deals an extra 1d6 damage. ---
Encounter - Primal, Weapon Standard Action - Melee weapon Target: One creature. Attack: +6 vs. AC Hit: 4d6 + 5 damage. Miss: You can take 5 damage to reroll the attack. If the reroll hits, use the hit effect above. If the reroll misses, you take 5 damage. ---
Encounter - Martial, Weapon Standard Action - Melee weapon Target: One creature. Attack: +6 vs. AC Hit: 4d6 + 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. ---
Encounter - Acid Move Action - Personal Effect: You shift 3 squares 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: +7 vs. Reflex Hit: 1d8 + 4 acid damage. ---
Daily - Primal, Rage, Weapon Standard Action - Melee weapon Target: One creature. Attack: +6 vs. AC Hit: 6d6 + 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 (2d6). ---
Mara-Kai was born in Akanul, the land of the Genasi. Well, the land of all proper Genasi as she had to learn. As she was born, several people advised her parents to leave her in the wild, because a "corrupted soul" could only bring misery. As they decided to keep her they became a bit isolated from the world around them, as many people would refuse to associate with them and their cursed child. Mara herself was loved by her parents, but noone else wanted her close. She grew up without friends, and encounters with other children either ended in parents dragging them away, or violently. At some point she just retreated from the world, spending most of her time in the towns library, where noone would bother her. Her parents got worried at her utter retreat, and decided to bring her somewhere else, give her the chance of a fresh start. They managed to get enough money for a travel to waterdeep, where one of their last friends would take her in. She managed to enroll in the local magic academy, but dropped out after a few years because she had trouble with the manipulation of elemental forces, barring her to further progression. She has worked as a librarian since.
Mara-Kai is a pitchblack genasi with glowing blue eyes, usually dressed in wide flowing garments. Due to her background she has trouble with people, so she is spending more time with books. It might have actually surprised you that she wanted to come with you on this mission, since she likes peace and quiet. But you are the only friends she has, so despite not necessarily showing it, she is quite attached to you, not wanting to be left behind.
Mara has, strangely enough, a knack for charms. She sows confusion among the opponents, and rearranges the battlefield. She can also magically influence people to act more friendly towards her, or to scare them. Aside from that she has a vast pool of knowledge.
(1) I forgot to mention combat blocks in my initial post. They are handy for you tracking things separate from me, and for comparing notes, but they aren't required. If you want to use one, use one; if you don't, that's your choice.
(2) Here's how I tend to do the following things. If you have any issues with any of these, please speak now.
• Initiatives: I roll all initiatives at the start of combat, including yours. Wartide will get to use his Battlefront Shift at that time, and then we'll go straight into combat. I've found that doing it this way tends to save about 2 days in running combats. • Monster Knowledges: I use the "Take 10" approach to this. I will list what you know in the status, using the highest "passive" appropriate knowledge. If you are not satisfied with what you "know," you are still allowed to make a free Knowledge check at any point, of your own accord. • Group Checks: I tend to roll these too, for the same reason as Initiatives. • Skill Challenges: I run these a bit different than most others. Unless there's a specific reason to do otherwise, I ask that you only choose what you're doing — a skill check, or aiding someone else's skill check — in each round of the skill check. I will roll any Aid checks first, and then I will roll the Skill checks from highest modifier to lowest. The reason for this is that I believe that Aid checks are a valuable resource to be used, and if you already know the result of the skill check before you aid it, then that's a bit of a metagaming thing.
(3) Roleplaying with Each Other: I know from personal experience that people handle their character interactions differently. Some people are alright if you "borrow" their characters in your own RP, so long as you don't do anything that would be out of character, and with the provision that they may alter it after the fact. Others are very hands-off about it — they don't want anyone suggesting an action/reaction for their character other than themselves. I have no idea how any of y'all are. Me? I'm a borrower. I suggest y'all discuss it before it becomes an issue (I saw one game nearly blow up because a couple of restricters were playing with a couple of borrowers).
(4) Finally… Fortune Cards.
I am not a fan of them. I think that the way that they are being marketed and implemented is a mistake; but I'm not WotC.
I am the DM, though.
If I were to implement them, at the moment without any other sort of playtesting it would be something along the following: • It would be a universal deck, not decks for individual players. • It would be all cards, not selected ones. (Including the Neverwinter cards.) • They would not be handed out at the beginning of an encounter. They would be awarded when you roll a Natural 1 during an encounter check (Combat or Skill Challenge). • A second die roll would determine what sort you get. (I'm leaning toward a 8: 1-4 Common; 5-7 Uncommon; 8 Rare.) At that point, I'd randomly select one of the appropriate type. (Could be 3 copies of a Common or 2 of an Uncommon in play at one time.) • If you already have one, you'd get to look at the second before discarding one. • When discarding, if someone else doesn't have a card, you may discard it to them; otherwise, it is discarded back into the deck.
If I were to implement this, it would need all players to be on board for it. If anyone's opposed to the idea of it, that's perfectly fine; one less thing for me to track. But if all are willing, I'd be interested in trying it out and seeing if it works this way.
• 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.
The rule of cool for me. If it works with what you're typing up, go ahead and use Wartide as appropriate. No running off of cliffs or smacking the Duke upside the head of course.
As far as fortune cards, they seem interesting but also something else to slow game play.. at least in table top play. Might be a different case for Pbp and would be willing to give em a go if the rest of the group is on board as well.
• 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.
• 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.
Acid
But if all are willing, I'd be interested in trying it out and seeing if it works this way.
