Beowulf Malign Warlord
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, there's always a question here of styles of game. I mean, IF you want a very abstract sort of game where you kinda just jump from challenge to challenge and explain the "oreo cookie outside" by simply making it up in a very abstract manner so it produces the challenges/encounters that you actually play out, then you might really just go with this sort of powers/practices/rituals/etc and then its just like "OK, I just called upon 2 bodyguards to protect me from the quaggoths. Sure, we're somewhere deep underground, I brought along an entourage and most of them are making base camp a couple miles back, but there's (glancing at my power selections) 5 guys following back there within earshot of the party who are keeping our path secure so the porters can bring up more supplies." None of that need have been established before, its just created as-needed to explain where 2 'called upon' minions came from.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, IMHO, a character that is based on this concept (A Warlord that commands minion NPCs, which are mechanically similar to or actually use the summoning rules) is going to be doing this a lot. If a daily power calls forth some minions, then presumably the character will use this power each day, which means at least 1 or 2 times per level, probably a couple times per adventure unless its a short adventure.
Now, there may be many cases where its perfectly easy to make it work within the story. The characters are wandering around in the wilderness, or in a town, or visiting some location or other for a short time (or the location is one where minions could just be hanging out) etc. This might well cover a good portion of the character's adventuring career. Its LIKELY though, say at Epic levels or even upper Paragon (maybe even before that) that the party is going to be slogging through Hell or something and the appearance of yet another minion out of nowhere is simply not going to be justifiable in narrative terms.
Truthfully this all can be viewed as a table culture issue. The GM can simply say "Nah, you can't do that here" and if the players are cool with that, then obviously there's no issue. Its just that 4e traditionally has this thing going on of "player empowerment" that a lot of people read into the system. So when the GM says 'no', they say "hell with that" and its an issue. Frankly I don't see this intent written into 4e anywhere myself. I never did. The most prominent argument for it is magic items being in the PHB and one sentence in the DMG that suggests players could make wish lists of items. I think its reasonable to believe that the intent was for players to have a significant say in what they get, and you can extrapolate that to the idea that PCs should function in a way that isn't bound by DM rulings. IMHO the designers INTENT was to free the DM from HAVING to make a lot of rulings, but not to bar him from making rulings based on narrative factors. Still, its the way the game is often played, and thus it is a real issue for this kind of class design.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Well i think of it as the idea is that spending time analyzing others fighting methods and tactics were done a lot historically and mythic-ally the situation of Beowulf might seem unusual but what about at tournaments.
The game doesn't exactly create the repeat enemy situation very often.... so its value is situational
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
i assumed his statement was reaction to the original Beowulf enemy analysis trick.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Ah, well, you're probably correct... lol.
I think its true, you don't OFTEN face the same enemy, but I've had campaigns where a nemesis dogged the PCs through a long period of time and appeared in say 4 or 5 encounters. Maybe you could extend the whole thing a bit to "any group of related opponents who have heard the word about you" or something. That's kind of fuzzy for 4e, but truthfully I get more and more fuzzy with time about 4e stuff...
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
one could use a cross encounter escalation die for that
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
one could use a cross encounter escalation die for that
That sounds like fun to keep track of
I have to admit as well to a sort of dislike of things like escalation dice 'limit breaks' and various other similar kinds of mechanics. I think some of them can possibly be useful, but only when there's something narrative that is being accounted by it. I just dislike pure gamist mechanics that exist for no other reason than tweaking play. I know, I could be accused of being 'old school' or something like that... Anyway, "you have learned how to fight this enemy" might be a decent enough excuse for it
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
That sounds like fun to keep track of
Ever heard of getting into the groove? If an activity takes a certain mind set it may take a bit of time to adjust. For instance play a series of games of chess with me and you will see the phenomena each game I get progressively better .... wait a while then play me again.
That getting in the groove, may not be a universal but I play for the tropes
"Heroes arise to the need" or as is "when the going gets tough the tough get going"
... ie the battle heating up with more intense moves playing out later is a fantasy battle flavor...
You can call it gamist I call it literary or synching very nicely with well established fictional tropes.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
That could be interesting. You initiate a practice. While it's going you swap an encounter/utility power. When you invoke a one-time benefit of the practice, the practice ends and the power swaps back.
Similar Threads
