This mentality needs to die

[ProfessorCirno]

That was an atrociously bad ruling. But, you know, DMs make those from time to time. It happens.

The issue is that the DM in this case is the Creative Manager, and - at least in this video - creativity doesn't seem to be his forte ;p

 

[S'mon]

Oh, re Darkfire, I think the correct RB GM's response is:

"OK, you outline the door with an eldritch glow. It's still frozen shut. Next!"

 

[Nightson]

I am 90% sure that there is a line in the rulebook somewhere that says powers affect objects at the discretion of the DM.

Darkfire not melting the ice sealing door makes perfect sense to me. And with more obvious avenues readily available to melt the ice, I wouldn't be inclined to spend extra effort to allow darkfire to work.

 

[S'mon]

I am 90% sure that there is a line in the rulebook somewhere that says powers affect objects at the discretion of the DM.

Yep. I mostly use that line to justify PCs *not* being able to poke doors to death with their dagger. You want to kill a door IMC, use an axe or a sledgehammer. It might take a few minutes, too.

 

[Rechan]

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.

Pssst.

Before it was called "Darkfire", it was called "Faerie Fire". Hence, "Fire" was always in the name. Hence, the situation could have easily been the same in any prior edition.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Pssst. Before it was called "Darkfire", it was called "Faerie Fire". Hence, "Fire" was always in the name. Hence, the situation could have easily been the same in any prior edition.

I don't think he's trying to say that the 4e name is worse than the previous name; only that the name regardless of edition should be change to omit the fire part.

I don't agree with it, because the effect is glowy/fiery, but I think that's what he is saying.

 

[bagger245]

Oh, re Darkfire, I think the correct RB GM's response is:

"OK, you outline the door with an eldritch glow. It's still frozen shut. Next!"

Easily done. But it does feel like the player is being punished. There is a difference also between a player that knows his abilities and trying to play it creatively compared to a newbie who just say "can this card with the word "fire" do the trick?"

The creative player gets rewarded by the DM saying YES but the outcome may or may not be in favour to the player. A newbie however, needs hand holding. But in this case the creature/=door was a bad example.

 

[Kurtomatic]

Oh, re Darkfire, I think the correct RB GM's response is:

"OK, you outline the door with an eldritch glow. It's still frozen shut. Next!"

bing! bing! bing!

I'd also go so far to say that the power was still available for use in the current/next encounter, making this a harmless but educational experiment.

 

[Rechan]

Using powers on objects is a no-brainer choice for me. A fire power should behave like fire and set things on fire, etc.

Infact, I encourage my PCs to do things that make sense for their powerset, even if they don't have an explicit Power to do it. "Hey I'm a druid and I have plant-based powers. Can I make roots come out of this cliff so we have some handholds?" It costs them an action point + healing surge, but it makes sense for their characters. A shaman my game used this to shove a primal spirit out of statue it was possessing.

Now, the caveat here is that doesn't mean it's a instant-win button. You can't eldrich-blast your way through a door unless you want to stand there for a few hours continually hammering away. It'd be the equivalent of killing a door with a dagger (good example S'mon).

The second caveat is that there may be a SPECIFIC reason X does not work. For instance, the Ice Door might not be meltable. The Ice Door may need the Ice Key to open. Or may only be meltable by flame from the Sacred Brazier of Whatever which is found elsewhere in the dungeon.

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.

This.

 

[Rechan]

I don't think he's trying to say that the 4e name is worse than the previous name; only that the name regardless of edition should be change to omit the fire part.

I don't agree with it, because the effect is glowy/fiery, but I think that's what he is saying.

No he says in the first sentence I quote that 4e has this problem right down to its core.

And I'm pointing out that if it does, then earlier editions did too.