This mentality needs to die

[I'm A Banana]

I don't have a problem with the ruling, per se, but I do have a problem with the reason for the ruling ("Well, the rules say 1 creature, and the door isn't a creature, so no").

The main problem I see is one that 4e actually has pretty deep down: naming conventions and flavor.

If the Darkfire was not called "darkfire," it wouldn't give the impression of being, you know, fire. The player was mislead by a name that didn't match what the power actually did. Maybe if was called "Elfshine," or "Assassin's Halo" or something.

Or, if Darkfire had evocative flavor text that described the phenomenom (which seems more like the St. Elmo's Fire kind of fire than the literal fire kind of fire), then a player who read the effect would know that it was a heatless kind of flame, more of a light than an actual fire.

Or, even if Darkfire had a reason why only creatures can be targeted ("conjures the light of a living soul to the surface" or something), the reason for the ruling would make sense.

Using a fiddly bit of rules language to deny the player is weak. It kind of inspires the "Oh no, I have to pay very close attention to every little word on my card" phenomena. Which is fun for D&D gearheads, sure, but not usually so fun for newbies and casual players.

If this were my game, I can see one of two things happening, depending on how charitable I'm feeling:

1. "Actually, Darkfire is more of an illumination, kind of a flickering halo that makes enemies in the darkness more visible. It's not a literal fire. Bad name. But if, say, you meet some enemies skulking around in the shadows, Darkfire will help you see them and hit them better." (Explaining the term a little better, giving an example of where you might want to use it; it's not the player's fault the power has a lousy name and unhelpful flavor text).
2. "Well, it's fire, right? But it doesn't do any damage or anything, so the heat it generates is pretty low. It would be kind of like trying to melt ice with your breath. Slow going. You could probably chip it off with your sword faster." (Yes, but..., combined with a suggestion for solving the problem the player is trying to solve; and now the player knows that they can use elfshine to keep themselves warm!)

I'm not sure this is so much an example of "Statistically Speaking"/videogame think as it is a case of rules/flavor/text mismatch. Player understandably thinks the power does something it doesn't do. Either give the power that ability, or explain it more clearly than the rules have, don't appeal to the rules as if it was the player's fault. Hacking at the ice should totally work (jaws of the wolf!). THAT is more videogame than the Darkfire thing. ("Oh, I can only hack at things that are creatures? I can't choose to attack other things?") Though I did like how he eventually just gave the player the answer to his little bottleneck, so it didn't quite turn into a game of "Guess What The DM Is Thinking." He kept it rolling OK, but the fact that there was a bottleneck to begin with is a little rough.

But, honestly, I saw a lot of things in that little video that made me question a lot of the underlying assumptions of D&D as a game, seeing the reactions of the new players to the stuff going on. Lots of math. "STOP MOVING AND ROLL" for a low DC. It certainly solidified my stance against minis, for one.

Some good stuff, too. The turning fire-trap is good, and the specific mention of hitting the drums is a subtle tactical recomendation.

 

[avin]

"Well, the rules say 1 creature, and the door isn't a creature, so no"

Mr. Perkins... this is very very bad... you should have explained that "Dark Fire" isn't a real fire (per rules)... but powers not working on objects is something 5E must get rid of.

That's a point where 4E fails miserably by RAW... BUT my 4E games sound very different from that.

 

[Ourph]

But anyway, DMing skills aside, do 4e combat typically run this way?

Every game of D&D (any edition) I've ever played with beginning players who don't have a firm grasp on the rules yet has run this way.

Combats in my current 4e game (with players who have all been playing for over a year) tend to run much more smoothly.

FWIW, I agree with Chris's ruling, but not with his reasoning (Darkfire doesn't have the "Fire" keyword, it doesn't create heat, it doesn't work to melt ice. Seems straightforward enough). That aside, I think he did a great job running the combat with new players. It may not be fun to watch, but the players were obviously engaged and having fun, and that's what is ultimately important.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Was playing rules light with a kid last night. In almost the same amount of time as that video she knocked out a couple of goblins, then wounded, healed and befriended a timber wolf, duelled with a goblin shaman, interrogated another goblin who told her to drink from a fountain. Didn't drink from the poisoned fountain but evaporated some of the water to form a blade venom and . . .

Great stuff. And XP for you!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Still, I don't think this was a good call, and I don't think this is the way most 4e games are played. What I would've done is say: "Sure, but Darkfire doesn't usually make actual flame. You'd need a successful Arcana check to modify your spell."

I like that idea, too.

Really, just don't tell me that the reason is because the rules don't want me to have fun.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Yeah, I definitely noticed that when I was watching it. Is there anything in the rules that allows you to use something intended for "One Creature" on objects? I was looking the DMG but I didn't see anything.

It doesn't matter for me, but I'm just curious if I'm in houserule territory or not.

EDIT: To give Chris the benefit of the doubt, I think he just made a mistake rather than that being how he would always rule it. He spend a lot of time reading it (by which I mean he should have spend no more than a second looking at the target line and saying "no" if that was all he was looking for) and was probably deciding on how to say it doesn't work, since there are a multitude reasons. I think he picked something obvious and didn't consider the repercussions of such a ruling.

Also, given that he ruled you can attack anything in the room, which are pretty much all objects, especially the drums, I think he's fine with attacking objects. *Shrug* I dunno. I think it's harsh to say "Man, he sucks, never want to play with that guy." Unless he does it again with a power that should work on a door, despite specifying creatures, like scorching burst or something.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Most funny thing: I had a similar Situation at my game table: Chaos scar adventure with a barred door... the sorcerer asked: can i use my thunderbolt to open the door... is said "yes"

It is not inheritely a system problem. In a rukes update it says that the DM can make a power that targets a creature also target an object.

Also i want to add, that in older editions it was clearly stated that magic is no tool and a magic missile was explicitely mentioned not to be usable against objects.

Also, darkfire is as already stated feary fire, an illusion. Feary fire would not have worked. His reasoning however was very bad. But maybe he didn´t want to have a debate about fire maybe hot enogh to melt it and used the easy way out.

In an older edtion i also would have said: Feary fire is only useful to outline creatures. It doesn´t work on objects.

 

[Mark]

I wouldn't disagree with the ruling, though the explanation highlights a silly rule restriction. I think I would have allowed the spell to (at the player's acceptance of this spell adjustment) outline the doors and make them easier to hit with lobbed flasks of oil or torches or whatever. The inflexibility of spells in the last two editions of D&D sometimes have me scratching my noggin.

 

[SteveC]

That being said, I really don't like a tendency to say no instead of yes. That makes the game less fun for everyone in my opinion. If a door is frozen shut and a PC has a fire power, I'd rather have the DM say "yes, but..." instead of just "no."

My game became about a thousand percent better when I put a post-it on my GM screen that said:

"Before saying no, remember you can add an 'and' or a 'but' right afterwards."

I try to remember the same thing when I say yes as well.

When players try something different and try to get engaged with the game, best to think long and hard before ruling it out.

--Steve

 

[Daern]

The tension in those videos seems to be that the Drow player is taking a more open ended approach to the encounter, like, "why fight? why not escape? this is fire? then it should melt ice right?" whereas the other players are going along with the idea of "ok he said roll initiative, so that means its a fight."
Although I wouldn't have allowed darkfire to melt the door, I do agree that Perkins seems to have a number of interesting options for the encounter, but the drow player is trying to discover new ones and is a being shut down a bit.
It would be neat to see some free form DMing by the seat of his pants in these videos as we all know those are often the most magical moments in rpgs...