can Blinding Barrage blind a swarm?

[balard]

I kind like agree with Plane Sailing. The fluff of the power must make sense, but I go another step and say that the fluff is up to the player capacity of make up a excuse

If they go and say: "I'm using BB in these two drake swarms" and rolls, I would just say: "HOW!?". Then is up to then explain. Targeting the leader, using chalk, saying his magic dagger turn in hundreds for this attack. If it makes sense in the game world, and doesn't change the mechanics I let then try. I do this for everything bizarre, like droppoing prone the Gelatinous Cube.

 

[Engilbrand]

Which is exactly as it should be. The second you say, "Well, this doesn't make sense, so you can't do it." you have to be willing to do that for EVERYTHING in the game or you're being a douche.
"I hit the ghost." "Nope. It's a ghost. You have a sword. That's not possible." "But, this rule..." "Too bad. It doesn't make sense so it can't happen."
To me, that's a douche move.

 

[Gort]

Which is exactly as it should be. The second you say, "Well, this doesn't make sense, so you can't do it." you have to be willing to do that for EVERYTHING in the game or you're being a douche.
"I hit the ghost." "Nope. It's a ghost. You have a sword. That's not possible." "But, this rule..." "Too bad. It doesn't make sense so it can't happen."
To me, that's a douche move.

That said, I do feel a bit disappointed that you just stab ghosts to death in D&D.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Which is exactly as it should be. The second you say, "Well, this doesn't make sense, so you can't do it." you have to be willing to do that for EVERYTHING in the game or you're being a douche.

Careful. You are close to saying that everyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation is an idiot, which our board rules prohibit.

One valid way of playing 4e is to say "every power works on everything", another equally valid way of playing 4e is to say "we'll assess the powers on a case by case basis, and see what makes sense to us".

If you try to say one way is "right" and the other way is "wrong" (whichever way round you prefer), you'll be heading for a red card and possibly a short holiday from the boards.

There is no "one true way".

Thanks

 

[Saeviomagy]

The problem with assessing every power on it's own merits is that there's a lot of cases where that screws the martial characters.

After all - any of the mystical characters can just say "it works because it's magic" and be absolutely correct. A martial character asked to justify how his powers work will often find that it's impossible to do.

So if you say "stabbing ghosts with swords simply doesn't work, but blasting them with magic works just fine", then the martial characters get to have an enjoyable session of doing nothing at all. There are very few uncontrived situations where the opposite is true.

Sure that's an extreme example, but the previous rule on thrown weapons and blast attacks does the same thing: if we can't rationalise using a single magical weapon on a blast attack, how can we rationalise using a crossbow? Or even a bow? No matter how much ammunition you use with those, I still can't see you being able to launch off (say) 25 attacks in the time that you can usually fire 2 or 3.

Of course that basically means that non-mystical characters get no blast or burst attacks that extend beyond melee, and we're gradually heading back towards the old "don't bother playing unless you're a spellcaster of some sort" that 3.5e was.

 

[Engilbrand]

I absolutely agree with Saeviomagy. This edition is pretty well balanced along a few lines. By sitting down to play it, people are agreeing to a basic premise about the edition that we're all familiar with. While there is no "true way" to play the game, I still don't agree with the idea certain mechanical choices will be shot down by a DM because he doesn't like the flavor text that's in the book. While I shall retract the douche statement, I will stick by the idea that I "strongly disagree" with any DM who plays that way. I've been in games like that before where a DM just starts making up stuff without warning that hurts the players. I don't like those kinds of games, and I call the DM on it.

 

[aurance]

Completely agree with Saeviomagy. Case by case with each power is a valid approach, but you are in for a lot of extra balancing work. If at all possible, I believe it is best for the DM to allow the effects to occur and come up with an after-the-game-resolution explanation for why it happens, ignoring flavor text as needed. This should be quite workable for most powers.