I Hate Bards

[Ryujin]

IMO, this discussion should have ended a long time ago.

Its not a gray area, its not RAW vs RAI or anything else. Its not even ambiguous. Unless stated, a power needs LoE from its origin square (in this case the caster) to the target. And means all targets, whether of the attack or of the effect.

And I definitely agree, though I think that the issue here is the rule statement regarding teleportation, itself. I think that some people are hanging their hats on the fact that teleportation requires line of sight, but not line of effect to the destination. They are also quibbling that the "target" isn't the character being teleported, but rather the target of the original attack. As you and I appear to agree you still require line of effect to the character that you want to teleport, as you are trying to effect that character with a generic power.

I might let the player do what is described here if the purple worm was transparent, because that would be in keeping with the concept of requiring only line of sight for teleport, but even that doesn't exist here.

 

[Maximilia]

I wasn't going to reply to this as others had put in their arguments and interpretations which I agreed with, however...

For those (including Iconik, Hi! *wave*) saying they don't understand where the hostility for this player comes from, look at the title of the thread: "I hate bards". It starts off on a negative slant right there, because it's not "Need a rules interpretation on a bard power" or "Need help with a rules call" or "Need help with a troublesome player"... it states in very strong speech "I hate bards". It implies there's a huge problem that's very disruptive.

As for the LoE on the target and whatnot, one thing people haven't brought up (amazingly, I think about every other angle was covered!) was if the bard needs line of effect on his ally to teleport him (which I can't see why he wouldn't? It's not like the power was creating a zone, and even if it was, the worm would protect him from that zone), he doesn't know where in the worm the other character is. How can you teleport something if you can't see it or don't know where it is? One can argue, "Well, it's maaaagic", but as another poster pointed out, it opens the door to a lot of abuse later on down the road. The teleportation rules do not cover teleporting another creature, only personal movement.

So, in cases where it's kind of open to interpretation, what I would have done as a GM was evaluate the situation. If it was dire, or a tough encounter, I would have ruled in favor of the player. If it was not dire, I would have ruled against it.

 

[Andramelech]

Question about 1st post

In a situation like this, where 1 pc solved the problem of getting past the beetles, how do you handle experience?

In the past I've given 1 PC a hole lot of experience for doing these kinds of things, because, well, he did it all.

I know how I'd handle it in one of my regular games, but I'm thinking of trying my hand at DMing some LFR games. Since this thread brought out all the rules lawyers, tell me, how would you guys handle experience in this situation?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As for the LoE on the target and whatnot, one thing people haven't brought up (amazingly, I think about every other angle was covered!) was if the bard needs line of effect on his ally to teleport him (which I can't see why he wouldn't? It's not like the power was creating a zone, and even if it was, the worm would protect him from that zone), he doesn't know where in the worm the other character is. How can you teleport something if you can't see it or don't know where it is? One can argue, "Well, it's maaaagic", but as another poster pointed out, it opens the door to a lot of abuse later on down the road. The teleportation rules do not cover teleporting another creature, only personal movement.

So, in cases where it's kind of open to interpretation, what I would have done as a GM was evaluate the situation. If it was dire, or a tough encounter, I would have ruled in favor of the player. If it was not dire, I would have ruled against it.

It all rides on the interpretation of one sentence on page 207 of the RC, which reads "..., there must be line of effect between the origin square of an effect and its intended target for that target to be affected." The issue being the term 'target', which in 4e has a precise technical meaning that doesn't particularly include the Bard in this case. It IS reasonable to construe 'target' to mean anything being affected by the power, but you can argue it either way.

In a situation like this, where 1 pc solved the problem of getting past the beetles, how do you handle experience?

In the past I've given 1 PC a hole lot of experience for doing these kinds of things, because, well, he did it all.

I know how I'd handle it in one of my regular games, but I'm thinking of trying my hand at DMing some LFR games. Since this thread brought out all the rules lawyers, tell me, how would you guys handle experience in this situation?

Well, by RAW there is no provision in 4e to divide XP any way except evenly amongst all characters present. Presumably they all bear the risks of failure even if some of them don't get a chance to contribute to the solution. By RAW even when a single character accomplishes a minor quest that doesn't involve the other PCs they STILL get an even share of the XP.

Personally I look at it this way. In 4e the game is oriented towards a group of PCs of the same level with equal XP progression. The situations where you might want to give different XP to different PCs are relatively limited. Even if you DID give all the XP to one character the end result is unlikely to be one guy progressing ahead of the party in levels. If that DID happen it wouldn't be exceptionally good for the game. Honestly 4e XP are pretty much a pacing mechanism more than a reward. A LOT of DMs have pretty well given up bothering with them, such as myself at this point. It just isn't worth the bother. Let the players go through a group of encounters and then just level them up when it seems right.

In other words I wouldn't bother with giving different XP to different characters. It just needless bookkeeping complexity at best.

 

[NMcCoy]

In a game that uses XP (most of the D&D I play these days doesn't bother), all the PCs gain XP at the same rate and level up at the same time. Individual awards for PCs come in a form other than XP.

 

[TarionzCousin]

In 4E, everybody gets the same amount of candy.

 

[ourchair]

A player using a skill check to skip an encounter the rest of the group really wanted to do does sound like a "dick" move to me.

I think that all depends on how they took it.

If the GROUP is all like, "We wanna fight!"

and the BARD is like, "Ha! My powers allow us to avoid it."

and the GROUP is all like, "Poo!"

and the PARTY MEMBERS are like, "Whew!"

then the GROUP is mature enough to be disappointed but not irritated, then there is no problem.

And as far as I can tell, Iconik's group WASN'T having a problem, just a concern that the Bard's abilities and the player's creativity may cause future problems like these.

And by problems I don't mean "table-bickering ensues," but problems of the group getting to do what they want and the DM supplying it but derailing it through his sheer cleverness and creativity, even if that is not his intention.

Sure, some people would argue that if the DM wants to give what the players want, then he should be able to punt that cleverness to the side and similarly argue that "anything otherwise is letting the Bard's abilities ride roughshod over him."

But that's an unfair argument because it implies that the DM is not applying a personal preference of sustaining plausibility and avoiding railroading habits by not handwaving the Bard's impact away.

 

[Infiniti2000]

EDIT: OK. I read that Rule of Thumb topic and I'm calling BS. Major BS. That just comes off as EN World/D&D snobbery. Something that EN World is above in my opinion. It has NOTHING to do with right or wrong. ...
Also...get that Rule of Thumb topic taken down. We're better than that.

It's not a sticky, so don't worry. What's more, I agree 100%. Post count means two things: Jack and you-know-what, and Jack left town. I have kind of a high post count, but certainly not from posting in the rules forums and there are many here who are way more rules-savvy than I (for example).

Back on topic, one piece of advice is to get rid of that stupid double-20 houserule. At the very least, don't give it to the bad guys.

 

[Jack99]

It's not a sticky, so don't worry. What's more, I agree 100%. Post count means two things: Jack and you-know-what, and Jack left town. I have kind of a high post count, but certainly not from posting in the rules forums and there are many here who are way more rules-savvy than I

Wrong again, I am still here!!!

 

[eamon]

I haven't seen people actually quote the relevant rules; so here goes:

You need line of effect to any target you attack and to any space in which you wish to create an effect

Also relevant, for context, the PHB on how to read powers:

Within x squares of you: when this language appears in a power description, treat the effect it refers to as a close burst for the purposes of determining line of effect.

Now, Victim of the Feywild can teleport allies within 5 squares of the target not you. Strictly speaking, that's an effect you wish to create and you'd need line of effect to do so. However, clearly for some effects, the appropriate origin square is not yourself, but the target; and it's arguable that that's the case here too; if a player were to argue that, I'd probably accept it.

In this case, either interpretation (that you are the origin square or that the power's target is the origin square) leads to the same conclusion: no line of effect. After all, no creature has line of effect to the swallowed creature, not even the worm itself.