Abruptly, the elemental vanishes from sight. The stench of brimstone as the fire spirit snuffs out is supplemented by the harsh smell of acid. Looking up, you notice that large, armored, green-eyed insects approach from all directions. Their feet click against the rocky terrain as they close around you.
Inits checked, PCs placed on map. Someone forgot to place Gribble; he's in (H,5).
First to go: Kank Soldiers
Kank Soldier 1: starts at (I-J,1-2) Move: Walk to (G-H,2-3) Standard: Bite @ Yuriel — 28 vs AC hits for 8 hp damage, and Yuriel is Grabbed.
Kank Soldier 2: starts at (I-J,7-8) Standard: Bite @ Emi — 12 vs AC misses
Kank Soldier 3: starts at (A-B,4-5) Move: Walk to (D-E,5-6) Standard: Bite @ Kormak — 20 vs AC misses. • Kormak may choose to activate Battle Resilience at this time.
Map Key: Illumination: Bright, of course Boulders: Elevation 2, Athletics DC 10 to Climb. Petrified Trees: Occupy corners, not spaces. Can be used for cover from Ranged Attacks (not Melee, Close, or Area).
(20) Kank Spitter(small natural beast, artillery): Resists5 acid & 5 poison; Bite (standard) does a little damage and some acid damage as well; Kank Spit (standard) does a little damage and slows (or immobilizes) and causes ongoing acid damage.
• 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.
"Dax!" Kormak cries in panic as the kank pincers grab the form behind him. He remembers that the person at his back was not his friend of battle. The two seem to have the same penchant for trouble though. He snaps his mouth shut with a clack of chomping teeth and he quickly wedges his shield under one of the pincers. He jabs his sword at the tender feelers at the base of the pincers and the kank opens them back up and backs off in pain.
"Didn't anyone teach you manners? No chewing with your mouth full!" He knows the kank doesn't understand the words, but the tone of voice carries its own threat. MechanicsShow
OOC: Kormak will trigger the power the first time he is hit with an attack. (Subject to change based on pending ooc discussion)
Minor: Psionic Vigor - gain 5 THP
Standard: Bull's Strength vs soldier 1: 23 vs AC; 11 damage and pushed to G-H,1-2 (breaks grab of Yuriel if creature's reach is less than 1) 13(1d20) +10 = 23; 6(1d8) +5 = 11
AC: 21 Fort: 15 Reflex: 14 Will: 17 HP: 44/44 Healing Surges Remaining: 10/13 (11) Init +1, Speed: 6 while not bloodied (Mercurial Mind); 5 while bloodied Power Points Remaining: 2/2 Status: Action Points: 0/1.5 [ ] Other combat related info: Master at Arms Feat: +1 to attack rolls of weapon attacks. Also, you can use a minor action to sheathe a weapon and then draw a weapon. Cast Iron Stomach (Dwarf Racial Feature): +5 to saves against poison effects. At-will AttacksShow
Melee 1 Trigger: An adjacent enemy marked by you deals damage to your ally with an attack that doesn't include you as a target. Effect: The target takes force and psychic damage equal to the damage that its attack dealt to your ally.
Trigger: An attack hits or misses you for the first time during an encounter. Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you gain resistance to all damage equal to 7
+10 vs AC Hit: 2d8+5 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.
+10 vs AC Hit: 3d8+5 damage Miss: Half damage Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you and allies adjacent to you have cover. As a minor action, you can end this effect to gain resist 5 to all damage until the start of your next turn.
If the marked target is adjacent and shifts, Kormak will shift 1 to stay adjacent. If the marked target is adjacent and deals damage to an ally with an attack that does not include Kormak, he will use Mind Spike (Immediate Reaction)Show
Melee 1 Trigger: An adjacent enemy marked by you deals damage to your ally with an attack that doesn't include you as a target. Effect: The target takes force and psychic damage equal to the damage that its attack dealt to your ally.
Kormak is hit or missed for the first time in the encounter, triggers Battle Resilience (Free Action)Show
Trigger: An attack hits or misses you for the first time during an encounter. Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you gain resistance to all damage equal to 7.
Use Second Chanceto make attacker reroll and use second roll
Zakim focuses his mental energy an lets out a scream as the air around him in a radius of several yards distorts with raw power. The two insect soldiers nearby are pushed way back from melee. Nakir then runs to climb of one of the boudlers and gain better visibility of the area. Still shaken by the outpour of energy, though, his legs give under him and he barely catches himself against the warm surface of the rock.
OOC: Coordinates for soldier 3 are not updated in the status block. OOC: It was the first time I used InvisibleCastle for multiple rolls and rolled 2x3 dice like an idiot, so I rerolled properly only 3 dice. Minor: Wilder's Armor to gain +2 to all Def UEONT and if I crit BEONT Zakim gains 9 THP Standard: Bedeviling Burst vs Will Close Burst 3, target 1 or 2 creatures (Soldier 2 & 3) +6 vs Will, 1d10+9 Push target 4 squares Even roll = slide instead of push Bedeviling Burst vs Soldier 2 and Soldier 3 (1d20+6=24, 1d20+6=23, 1d10+9=19) Even roll: +1AC UEONT 19 damage on both creatures slide soldier 2 to [-A-A;3-4] slide soldier 3 to [M-N;11-12] off map (sorry) Move: F6,E5, Athletics roll to climb to D4: Athletics (1d10+1=6)Fail and stop movement in E5, Doh!
HP: 29/29 THP: 0 AC: 20 1917 Fort/Ref/Will: 15/18/20 13/16/18 Surges: 3/7 Surge Value: 7 Action Points: 0 Initiative: +5 Passive Insight: 10 Passive Perception: 10 Conditions: +2 to all Def TEONT If he crits before EONT Zakim gains +9THP +1 AC Special: - +2 AC against OAs - +5 saving throw vs Fear - Chaos Burst: 1st attack of your turn: even = +1 AC, odd = saving throw - Wild Soul: +5 Resist Necrotic / Ignore up to 5 Resist Necrotic on targets (until next extended rest) - Arcane Spellfury: If hits with a sorcerer at-will, gains +1 to hit the same target next round - Unfettered Power: when using an arcane power: - 20 Roll: Slide target 1 square and knock it prone (after applying attack's other effects) - 1 Roll: Must push each creature within 5 square 1 square PowersShow
Ranged 10, one creature +6 vs Ref, 1d10+9 psychic Roll 1d6 for damage type 1. Cold 2. Fire 3. Force 4. Lightning 5. Radiant 6. Thunder Gain resist 5 vs that source
Visim startles, reacting quickly to the kanks closing in on all sides. Not caring enough to mask his arcane power from their new companion, his eyes flare with an other worldly blue light. The Kank nearest him stumbles, before turning around and lumbering back beyond the rock faces it came from. A lumbering blow and screeching come from the other side.
Survival first, then we'll worry about the delicate matter of addressing the issue.
Standard: Charm of Misplaced Wrath on Kank Soldier 3 Atk: (1d20+7=23) vs Will Hit: Slide to (-A)-A:7-8 and MBA spitter with a +2 power bonus. Dazed UENT.
If Visim is hit by an attack vs AC or Reflex, he will use Shield as an interrupt to add +4 power bonus to that defense. If I can wait until an attack will definately miss before doing so, I will, but I'm not worried if that's cheesing it too much
Yuriel's eyes widen as blasts of arcane power go off all around him.
They really weresorceror's!But I don't feel my life being drained away like the elders said I would... Lets survive one thing at a time!
The weak spot is right in between these plates, here!
Yuriel draws his obsidian blade and deftly shifts his stance as he closes with the kank and thrusts at a joint between a shoulder plate and the neck.
Minor to draw sword, shift to H, 3, Standard to Intuitive Strike: 5(1d20) +8 = 13 vs. Will Hit: 2(1d8) = 2 damage and if anyone has combat advantage vs. the target, they get an additional +2 to their attack rolls vs. it.
EDIT: My strategy here is that everyone gains combat advantage vs. enemies adjacent to Gribble, so this is an easy bonus to accuracy with very little coordination. This should help us hit this Soldiers high defenses (if I hit!). I would have attacked the dazed kank, but I couldn't reach him! (thinks about switching to hide armor for the speed boost...)
As the Kank soilder attacks Emi, Gribble runs up and takes a big crunchy bite out of his leg. MechanicsShow
Gribble Movement: I6 *Faithful Pack Hound Aura 1: Enemies grant combat advantage while in the aura
Emi: Combined Attack: Scimitar +9 vs AC 1d8+5 (+2 to attack for CA) = 27vsAC, 10 dmg (your animal companion can take a free action to move up to its speed and then use it's animal attack)
Gribble: Animal Attack: Melee 1, +7 vs AC 1d8+ Wis mod (5) + Con mod (4) damage (+2 to attack for CA)= 11vsAC, 10 dmg
End of Turn: Emi (H6) {33/33} Status: ; Used: 5/12 Surges, 0/1 AP, 0/2 SD, 0/2 Healing Word Gribble (I6) {16/16}
Technicly Emi has 9 SD because she had 7 on her before the pavilion...wait, did you say that part didn't happen? I'm confused now, but she had 7 of her own.
[_] Action Point [ ] Second Wind At Will Powers [_] Tending Strike [_] Mental Tools Encounter Powers [X] Combined Attack [_][_]Healing Word [_] Knack for Success [_] Mark of Thunder [_] Barkskin Daily Powers [_] Fires of Life
Resist: Saves: MBA: +7 vs AC, 1d8+3 RBA: +6 vs Ref, 1d4+1
Death Saving Throws [X] [ ] [ ]
Action Point [ ] [ ] [ ]
Special Herb Lore: You and allies add +2 to healing surge value during short rests. Watchful Rest: During an extended rest you and any resting allies do not take the -5 penalty to Perception checks for sleeping. Combat Medic: Stabilize the dying as a minor action, +2 Heal checks Faithful Pack Hound Aura 1: Enemies grant combat advantage while in the aura Group Diplomacy: Allies within 10 get +1 to Diplomacy
• Emi — Half-Elf, Sentinel of Spring (no theme) - The_Emissary • Kormak — Dwarf, Resilient Battlemind (no theme) - Brys • Visim — Human, Enchanter, Veiled Alliance - Rich_The_Mad • Zakim — Halfling, Chaos Sorcerer, Wilder - Scyner
*Melee Basic Attack: Scimitar +7 vs AC, 1d8+3 - Staff Imp +8 vs AC, 1d8+3 *Ranged Basic Attack: Dagger +6 vs AC, 1d4+1 *Tending Strike: Scimitar +9 vs AC 1d8+5 - Staff Imp +8 vs AC 1d8+5 *Mental Tools: You create a simple tool you can hold in one hand and it appears in your hand or at your feet.
*Combined Attack: Scimitar +9 vs AC 1d8+5, Staff Imp +8 vs AC 1d8+5 - your animal companion can take a free action to move up to its speed and then use it's animal attack *Healing Word: Close burst 5/10/15 you or one ally in the burst -The target can spend a healing surge and regain 1d6 additional hp (can be used twice per encounter) *Knack for Success: Close burst 5 you or one ally in the burst choose one of the following: -The target makes a saving throw -The target shifts up to 2 squares as a free action -The target gains a +2 power bonus to his or her next attack roll made before the end of his/her next turn -The target gains a +4 power bonus to his/her next skill check made before the end of his/her next turn *Mark of Thunder: Scimitar +9 vs AC 1d8+3 Staff Imp +8 vs AC 1d8+3 -You mark the target until the end of your next turn. Until the mark ends, if the target makes an attack that does not include you, it takes 5 thunder damage. *Barkskin: Ranged 5 you or one ally -Until the end of your next turn, the target gains a power bonus to AC equal to your Con mod. (+3)
*Fires of Life: Staff Imp +6 vs Reflex 1d6+5 Area burst 1 in 10, each enemy in the burst -1d6+5 fire damage and ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends). If the target drops to 0 hit points before it saves against the ongoing damage, one creature of your choice within 5 squares of the target regains hit points equal to 5 + Con mod (+3)
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ====== Emi Frostfire, level 2 Half-Elf, Druid (Sentinel) Season: Druid of Spring Druid Wilderness Knacks Option: Herb Lore (Druid) Druid Wilderness Knacks Option: Watchful Rest (Druid) Half-Elf Power Selection Option: Knack for Success Dark Sun, Inherent Bonuses Early Life - Lost Everything (+2 to Endurance) Theme: Primal Guardian Language: Thri-Kreen
FINAL ABILITY SCORES STR 14, CON 16, DEX 11, INT 10, WIS 18, CHA 10
STARTING ABILITY SCORES STR 14, CON 14, DEX 11, INT 10, WIS 16, CHA 10
POWERS Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack Primal Guardian Feature: Mark of Thunder Half-Elf Racial Power: Knack for Success Druid Attack: Combined Attack Cleric Utility: Healing Word Wild Talent Cantrip: Mental Tools Druid Attack 1: Tending Strike Druid Attack 1: Fires of Life Druid Utility 2: Barkskin
FEATS Level 1: Combat Medic Level 2: Durable
====== End ====== Racial Features *Group Diplomacy: Allies within 10 get +1 to Diplomacy
Class/Other Features *Druid of Spring: Gain an animal companion, scimitar proficiency & +1 to attack, +2 to Heal checks *Herb Lore: You and Allies add +2/4/6 (by tier) to healing surge value during short rests *Primal Guardian: While not wearing heavy armor, use Con mod in place of Dex or Int mod to determine AC *Watchful Rest: During an extended rest you and any resting allies do not take the -5 penalty to Perception checks for sleeping
Feats *Combat Medic: Stabilize the dying as a minor action, +2 to Heal checks *Durable: Your number of healing surges increases by two
HP: 16 Initiative:1 AC 15 Fort 13 Ref 13 Will 13 Perception:12 Speed: 8 low-light vision
Traits *Faithful Pack Hound Aura 1: Enemies grant combat advantage while in the aura
Standard Actions *Animal Attack: Melee 1, +7 vs AC 1d8+ Wis mod (5) + Con mod (4) damage (goes up by teir) (not really sure what this means, can someone clarify if I add both for att/dmg or Wis/att and Con/dmg
"I wish none of this had happened..." "So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide, is what to do with the time that is given to us..." ~LotR
Map Key: Illumination: Bright, of course Boulders: Elevation 2, Athletics DC 10 to Climb. Petrified Trees: Occupy corners, not spaces. Can be used for cover from Ranged Attacks (not Melee, Close, or Area).
(20) Kank Spitter(small natural beast, artillery): Resists5 acid & 5 poison; Bite (standard) does a little damage and some acid damage as well; Kank Spit (standard) does a little damage and slows (or immobilizes) and causes ongoing acid damage.
• 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.
If hit by an attack targetting AC or REF, Visim will use shield to gain a +4 interrupt bonus to that defense. If I can "know" the attack roll before using it, I will only use it when it will prevent a hit.
If I hit with Phantasmal Assault, Kank soldier 1 grants CA. If that's the case i reccomend Yuriel goes first to try to inflict Intuitive strike to give everyone else another +2 on top of it. If not, Emi should probably go next to line up Gribble for CA to synergize .
The soldiers renew their assault. Two of them successfully get their mandibles around Yuriel and Gribble, biting into them both. The third tries for Zakim, but the wilder's psychic defenses help him to avoid the attack.
Zakim: Second Chance roll — 23 vs Reflex hits. Damage roll stands as before.
Visim: Hits, Soldier 1 grants CA until Visim's eont.
Fight/Flight: Nyet
Kank Soldier 1: Move: Shift to (H-I,1-2) Standard: Bite @ Yuriel — 19 vs AC (forgot to include the marked penalty) hits for 2 hp damage and Yuriel is grabbed.
Kank Soldier 2: Standard: Charge @ Gribble — Move to (J-K,7-8); Bite (17 vs AC - forgot to include charge bonus) hits for 6 hp damage and Gribble is grabbed.
Kank Soldier 3: Move: Walk to (C-D,5-6) Standard: Bite @ Zakim — 17 vs AC misses.
Map Key: Illumination: Bright, of course Boulders: Elevation 2, Athletics DC 10 to Climb. Petrified Trees: Occupy corners, not spaces. Can be used for cover from Ranged Attacks (not Melee, Close, or Area).
(20) Kank Spitter(small natural beast, artillery): Resists5 acid & 5 poison; Bite (standard) does a little damage and some acid damage as well; Kank Spit (standard) does a little damage and slows (or immobilizes) and causes ongoing acid damage.
• 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.
"Quit throwing yourself back into his maw!" The dwarf stands beside Yuriel, wondering why this newcomers wants to be eaten. He would need to be careful around Zakim. Kormak stabs deeply, hitting the same tender spot, this time drawing blood. The kank skitters back again. "I can't be in front if you don't stay behind me." MechanicsShow
Triggered Actions: Kormak will trigger Battle Resilience the first time he is hit with an attack.
AC: 21 Fort: 15 Reflex: 14 Will: 17 HP: 44+5/44 Healing Surges Remaining: 10/13 (11) Init +1, Speed: 6 while not bloodied (Mercurial Mind); 5 while bloodied Power Points Remaining: 2/2 Status: Action Points: 0/1.5 [ ] Other combat related info: Master at Arms Feat: +1 to attack rolls of weapon attacks. Also, you can use a minor action to sheathe a weapon and then draw a weapon. Cast Iron Stomach (Dwarf Racial Feature): +5 to saves against poison effects. At-will AttacksShow
Melee 1 Trigger: An adjacent enemy marked by you deals damage to your ally with an attack that doesn't include you as a target. Effect: The target takes force and psychic damage equal to the damage that its attack dealt to your ally.
Trigger: An attack hits or misses you for the first time during an encounter. Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you gain resistance to all damage equal to 7
+10 vs AC Hit: 2d8+5 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.
+10 vs AC Hit: 3d8+5 damage Miss: Half damage Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you and allies adjacent to you have cover. As a minor action, you can end this effect to gain resist 5 to all damage until the start of your next turn.
If the marked target is adjacent and shifts, Kormak will shift 1 to stay adjacent. If the marked target is adjacent and deals damage to an ally with an attack that does not include Kormak, he will use Mind Spike (Immediate Reaction)Show
Melee 1 Trigger: An adjacent enemy marked by you deals damage to your ally with an attack that doesn't include you as a target. Effect: The target takes force and psychic damage equal to the damage that its attack dealt to your ally.
Kormak is hit or missed for the first time in the encounter, triggers Battle Resilience (Free Action)Show
Trigger: An attack hits or misses you for the first time during an encounter. Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you gain resistance to all damage equal to 7.
.
