Iandak pushes off the wall and rushes the two men. He gets in close before they realize he's there, but a couple of punches to the face make them very much aware of him. "Don't let them get away."
Note: Iandak used 2 surges after last combat. Now 3/10 used for the day. Move: Combat Sprint: Move speed +4 to J,14
Standard: Whirling Frenzy (all creatures in a close burst 1) Tyrian Spy: 19 vs Reflex; 11 damage if hit Urikite Spy: 21 vs Reflex; 11 damage if hit Iandak takes 1d6 for each/any miss. 9(1d20) +10 = 19; 11(1d20) +10 = 21; 1(1d10) +4(1d10) +6 = 11
Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One creature Effect: Before the attack you can shift 2 squares. You can move through an enemy's space during the shift but you cannot end there. Attack: +10 vs AC Hit: 1d10+6 damage and you push the target 1 square. If you are raging, the attack deals 1d6 extra damage.
Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One creature Attack: +10 vs AC Hit: 1d10+6 damage and an enemy adjacent to you other than the target takes 1[W] damage (off-hand weapon). If you are raging, add your Dex Modifier (+3) to both damage rolls.
Standard Action Close Burst 1 Target: Each creature in the burst Attack: +10 vs AC (Whirling Slayer: can target Reflex instead of AC) Hit: 1d10+1d10+6 (main weapon+off-hand+STR) Miss: You take 1d6 damage, with no modifiers.
Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One creature Attack: +10 vs AC Hit: 1d10+6 Effect: You shift 3 squares. If the attack hit, you deal 1d10+2 damage to one or two enemies that are adjacent to you at some point during the shift.
Trigger: Your attack reduces an enemy to 0 hit points. Effect: You shift 2 squares and then deal 1[W] damage (off-hand weapon) to an enemy adjacent to you that you can see.
Move Action Personal Effect: You move your speed+4. You gain a +4 bonus to all defenses against any opportunity attacks you provoke with this movement.
Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One creature Attack: +10 vs AC Hit: 1d10+6 thunder damage Effect: 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.
Iandak strikes with both weapons, catching the spies off guard... After he draws the first blood, the Urikkite spy utters a few words, activating his finger ring... The ground below Iandak's feet starts to shake, as a somewhat humanoid shape rises from the ground... It is entirely made of earth...
Standard: Staggering Shot @ Tyrian Spy — 19 vs AC (includes Concealment, no Cover penalty). That hits and does 16 hp damage, push him to (L,14), and the first time the target moves on his next turn, knock him prone after the move.
Move: Knight's Move @ Zaffa — Zaffa may make a move action as a free action.
Stasi, originally aiming toward the Urikite, quickly switches targets, her arrow flying toward the Tyrian, hitting him in the shoulder and spinning him back against the wall. "Halfbreed, you 'n' Giant cut 'em off!" she orders. "Scales 'n' Weeds 'n' I got yer backs! Now move it!" Zaffa finds herself moving without even realizing it. StatblockShow
Notes: • Allies within 10 & can see or hear Stasi get +3 power bonus to Initiative. • Allies who spend AP within line-of-sight of Stasi may Shift 3 (free action) before or after using the granted action to Attack. • +1 bonus to damage from bow to targets that aren't adjacent to other creatures. • +2 bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, & Sense Motive vs Slaves
Actions: MBA: Spear, +9 vs AC, 1d8+5 RBA: Longbow, +10 vs AC, 1d10+5 Standard: [A]Direct the Strike, [A]Paint the Bulls-eye, [A]Risky Shot, [_]Pin Cushion, [x]Staggering Shot, [x]Relentless Wounding, [_]Second Wind Move: [x]Knight's Move Minor: [A]Psionic Image, [_][_]Inspiring Word Free: [x]Action Point, [_]Hidden Strike Immediate Reaction: [_]Beloved Performer
• 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.
Azimuth shuffles out of the alleyway determined to try and cut off at least one exit. "Give yourselvess up and we will be merciful, fight and you will seal your fate!" the last 5 words he speaks slowly, powerfully. The last word carries a psychic weight as it echoes around the alleyway. The Elemental is clearly unimpressed but the Urikite may have been given pause as he backs himself into a corner.
move: F,15 Minor: warlock's curse on elemental Standard: Echoing dirge, 2 targets in close burst 5 7 vs Will, Elemental 17 vs Will, Urkite, 12 dmg and pushed 2 (L,13) Echoing dirge, curse dmg (1d20+7=9, 1d20+7=19, 1d8+5=12, 1d6=6) (forgot to include -2 in rolls)
Free: (Knight's Move) Walk to (G,13) Move: Walk to (K,14), taking an OA from the Earth Elemental. Standard: Vicious Cobra Strike (Augment 1) on Tyrian Spy (L,14): 1d20+10=28, 1d10+5=10; both Tyrian Spy and Urikite Spy marked on hit. ((Pretty sure that hits; otherwise, I'd use Defender of the Wild to mark the two spies.))
Minor Action, Close burst 1 Target One creature in burst Effect Zaffa marks the target until she uses this power again or until the end of the encounter. Augment 1 Target One or two creatures in burst
Free Action, Personal Trigger An adjacent enemy marked by Zaffa shifts. Effect Zaffa shifts 1 square. Special Zaffa can use this power only once per turn.
Standard Action, Melee 2 +10 vs. Will Target One creature Hit 4 damage, and Zaffa pulls the target 1 square. Until the end of her next turn, the target can move only to squares that are adjacent to her. Augment 1 Range Melee 5 Hit As above, but Zaffa pulls the target 4 squares. Augment 2 Range Melee 5 Hit 1d10+5 damage, and Zaffa pulls the target 4 squares and knocks it prone. Until the end of her next turn, the target can move only to squares that are adjacent to her.
Immediate Reaction, Melee 1 Target The triggering enemy Trigger An adjacent enemy marked by Zaffa deals damage to her ally with an attack that doesn't include her as a target. Effect The target takes force and psychic damage equal to the damage that its attack dealt to Zaffa's ally.
Minor Action, Personal Effect Zaffa teleports an object she is holding in one hand to an unoccupied square within 10 squares of her or to a willing creature within 10 squares of her.
Standard Action, Warhammer +10 vs. AC Target One creature Hit 1d10+5 damage. Until the end of Zaffa's next turn, the target takes a penalty to attack rolls equal to the number of Zaffa's allies adjacent to it. Critical +1d6 damage Augment 1 Special When making an opportunity attack, Zaffa can use this power in place of a melee basic attack. Augment 2 Hit 1d10+5 damage, and the target is blinded until the end of Zaffa's next turn.
Standard Action, Warhammer +10 vs. AC Target One or two creatures Hit 5 psychic damage, and Zaffa marks the target until the end of her next turn. If she targets only one creature with this power, the attack deals 1d10 extra damage. Critical +1d6 damage Augment 1 Hit As above, and Zaffa also marks one enemy adjacent to the target until the end of her next turn. Augment 2 Attack Type: Close burst 1 Target Each enemy Zaffa can see in burst Hit 1d10+5 psychic damage, and the target is marked and takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of Zaffa's next turn.
Free Action, Personal Trigger An attack hits or misses Zaffa for the first time during an encounter. Effect Until the end of her next turn, Zaffa gains 5 resistance to all damage.
Standard Action, Warhammer +10 vs. AC Target One creature Hit 2d10+5 damage, and Zaffa pushes the target 2+1 squares. The target and each enemy adjacent to the target at the end of the push are slowed until the end of Zaffa's next turn. Critical +1d6 damage
No Action, Personal Trigger Zaffa starts her turn. Effect Zaffa ends any ongoing damage or any dazed, slowed, stunned or weakened condition currently affecting her.
Standard Action, Personal Effect Zaffa spends a healing surge to regain hit points and gains a +2 bonus to all defenses until the start of her next turn.
Standard Action, Warhammer +10 vs. AC (Zaffa has combat advantage for this attack.) Target One creature Effect Before the attack, Zaffa shifts her speed. She can move through enemies' spaces during this movement. Hit 2d10+5 damage. Zaffa's movement does not provoke opportunity attacks from the target until the end of the encounter. Critical +1d6 damage Miss Half damage. Effect Until the end of the encounter, Zaffa gains a +2 power bonus to speed. In addition, when she shifts, she shifts 1 extra square.
Standard Action, Close burst 5 Target Each ally in burst Requirement Zaffa's second wind must be available for her to use. Effect Zaffa uses her second wind, and each target gains 14 temporary hit points.
When Zaffa rushes past the earth elemental, it reacts surprisingly quickly and hits her behind the head. She makes a mental note not underestimate it anymore and braces herself for any more damage. She then rushes the Tyrian hooded spy, and interrupt him while he was summoning energy for a spell. At least 'ese two ain't gunna go 'nywhere.
The Urikite too summons a spells, holding on to his medallion
"Oh Hamanu, King of the Mountains and the Plains, Lion of Urik, King of the World! Grant me the power to defeat your enemies!"
With that you see two large yellow light in the shape of feline eyes appear in front of the Urikite, no doubt a Templar of Urik... Zaffa hides behind her large shield and avoids any effect, but Iandak takes the full force of the attack, drops to the ground, his whole body feeling the searing pain of the Tyran's gaze.
The Urikite then shifts away from Zaffa, who seems to pose a serious threat.
Zaffa: Move triggers OA from Elemental Slamon Zaffa (Tremorsense = no penalty): 27 vs AC, Hit! 16-5=11 Damage and Zaffa Cannot Shift UEO Elemental NT Zaffa's Battle Resilience triggered Zaffa then hits and marks
Tyrian Traitor's turn: Move: Stands up Standard: Eldrich Spear on Zaffa (-2 dim light): 13 vs AC, Miss!
Urikite Spy's turn: Standard: Fettering Glare Close Burst 2 (enemies in the burst) vs Will: Zaffa: 11 vs Will, Miss! Iandak: Crit! 20 Damage. Iandak falls Prone. The next ally of the Urikite spy that hits and damages Iandak before the end of the Urikite's next turn can reroll one attack roll before the end of the ally's next turn, using either result. Iandak is Bloodied. Move: Shift to [J,12] Trigger: I assumed Zaffa would want to use Blurred Stepto stay in contact with both spies in [K,13]. EDIT: Zaffa is unable to shift due to condition
Iandak 23/47 Bloodied, Prone, Special Condition * Stasi 34/37 Zaffa 41/52 Cannot Shift UEO Elemental NT, Resist 5 All UEONT Azimuth 43/43 Tyrian Traitor [L,14] -37/?? Prone, Marked UEONT (Zaffa) Urikite Spy [J,12] -11/??Marked UEONT (Zaffa) >>>Luusi 34/37 Minor Earth Elemental [I,13] ??/?? Cursed (Az) Special: Dim Light, everybody gets partial concealment (-2 ATK to those with normal vision). >> Everybody has -2ATK except Luusi (lowlight vision) and the elemental (tremorsense).
(*) Special Condition (just too long to keep in initiative block): The next ally of the Urikite that hits and damages Iandak before the end of the Urikite's next turn can reroll one attack roll before the end of the ally's next turn, using either result.
Urikite Spy Race: Human Elite Controller Highest NAD: Will HP = [22 to ..] Ref = [.. to 19] Will = [18 to ..]
Tyrian Spy Race: Human Elite Controller Highest NAD: Will HP = [74 to ..] AC = [.. to 17] Ref = [.. to 17]
Minor Elemental Race: Elemental Senses: Tremorsense 5 Soldier Highest NAD: Fort HP = [.. to ..] AC = [.. to ..] Fort = [8 to ..] Ref = [.. to ..] Will = [8 to ..]
Luusi communicates to Aejej that she wants the wind spirits to move her companions and their foes away from each other. The little djinnling tries to makes Luusi's wishes known, but the capricious elementals fly right over the enemies and Iandak to shove Zaffa a little ways. Luusi rolls her eyes in exasperation as Aejej shakes her fists angrily at the laughing spirits.
Standard: Howling Wall on Urikite, Elemental, Iandak & Zaffa -- Rolls here vs. Fortitude Urikite: 10, Elemental: 12, Iandak: 14, Zaffa: 26 Missed all except for Zaffa, who is slid to K-12.
The Urikite speaks in a low voice that sounds like gravels against stone to direct the Elemental around the battlefield. The magic creature slides between its master and Iandak and takes a swing at the Half-Giant. But it is way to slow and Iandak has time to roll away...
>>>Iandak 23/47 Bloodied, Prone, Special Condition * >>>Stasi 34/37 >>>Zaffa 41/52 Cannot Shift UEO Elemental NT, Resist 5 All UEONT >>>Azimuth 43/43 Tyrian Traitor [L,14] -37/?? Prone, Marked UEONT (Zaffa) Urikite Spy [J,12] -11/??Marked UEONT (Zaffa) Luusi 34/37 Minor Earth Elemental [J,13] ??/?? Cursed (Az) Special: Dim Light, everybody gets partial concealment (-2 ATK to those with normal vision). >> Everybody has -2ATK except Luusi (lowlight vision) and the elemental (tremorsense).
(*) Special Condition (just too long to keep in initiative block): The next ally of the Urikite that hits and damages Iandak before the end of the Urikite's next turn can reroll one attack roll before the end of the ally's next turn, using either result.
Urikite Spy Race: Human Elite Controller Highest NAD: Will HP = [22 to ..] Fort = [11 to ..] Ref = [.. to 19] Will = [18 to ..]
Tyrian Spy Race: Human Elite Controller Highest NAD: Will HP = [74 to ..] AC = [.. to 17] Fort = [11 to ..] Ref = [.. to 17]
Minor Elemental Race: Elemental Senses: Tremorsense 5 Soldier Highest NAD: Fort HP = [.. to ..] AC = [.. to ..] Fort = [13 to ..] Ref = [.. to ..] Will = [8 to ..]
Standard: Pin Cushion @ Urikite Spy — 21 vs AC (includes Concealment penalty). On hit, 15 hp damage and until My end of next turn, I and my allies get +3 to Ranged Attacks vs the target.
Considering the move a safe one, Stasi steps forward out of the alley and fires an arrow into the Urikite. "There, Scales, knock 'im back 'gainst the wall now, so's they kin nail 'em to it."
Taking a glance at Iandak, she adds, "Ye're a tough 'un, Giant, show 'em what ye got," trying to encourage the man to greater things. StatblockShow
Conditions: -2 to attacks from Dim Light, +3 to ranged attacks @ Urikite
Notes: • Allies within 10 & can see or hear Stasi get +3 power bonus to Initiative. • Allies who spend AP within line-of-sight of Stasi may Shift 3 (free action) before or after using the granted action to Attack. • +1 bonus to damage from bow to targets that aren't adjacent to other creatures. • +2 bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, & Sense Motive vs Slaves
Actions: MBA: Spear, +9 vs AC, 1d8+5 RBA: Longbow, +10 vs AC, 1d10+5 Standard: [A]Direct the Strike, [A]Paint the Bulls-eye, [A]Risky Shot, [x]Pin Cushion, [x]Staggering Shot, [x]Relentless Wounding, [_]Second Wind Move: [x]Knight's Move Minor: [A]Psionic Image, [x][_]Inspiring Word Free: [x]Action Point, [_]Hidden Strike Immediate Reaction: [_]Beloved Performer
• 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.
