Excerpt: Swarms

[Stalker0]

Not allowed to joke? I do believe that even Mearl's tone can't stand up to the precedent of awesome hilarity that was set back on page 5

Ah yes, page 5. Now those were the days.

 

[Agamon]

Ah yes, page 5. Now those were the days.

I remember it like it was yesterday...

 

[AllisterH]

I'll ask again.

Does anyone know what alchemist fire falls under? The reason why I ask is that looking at the history of alchemist fire in D&D is that it is an area attack and that it has continuous damage.

Translated to 4E (admittedly, total conjecture), wouldn't alchemist fire basically mean "Game over" for the needlefang swarm thanks to its vulnerability?

 

[Dausuul]

I'll ask again.

Does anyone know what alchemist fire falls under? The reason why I ask is that looking at the history of alchemist fire in D&D is that it is an area attack and that it has continuous damage.

Translated to 4E (admittedly, total conjecture), wouldn't alchemist fire basically mean "Game over" for the needlefang swarm thanks to its vulnerability?

Don't know that it would be game over, but it would go quite a way toward evening the odds.

 

[jtrowell]

Maybe auras of the same type do not stack ?

Then having several swarms near you would only give them one attack at the start of your turn ?

 

[Jack99]

Ah yes, page 5. Now those were the days.

pfft, nothing beats a page 8 thread, nothing.







In case anyone wonders, the page 8 thread is a famous Everquest thread: Guy posts and complains about being scammed. Scammer responds and gets flamed. Scammer's friend shows up and defend scammer. Scammer and friend turn out to be the same person, when he screws up and posts with the wrong account. After that the thread just explodes. Quite funny There was even a GUcomic about it, but it seems to have been lost. The boards don't exist anymore, but someone preserved part of the thread in word format, so if you want a good laugh, it's here

 

[Lizard]

In 4e the rules mean exactly what they say and only what they say. You aren't supposed to ask questions about them. If the rules seem like they should cover some case, but the rules don't say that they do - it's not an oversight; they just don't cover the case. Likewise, if something seems logical, but it isn't mentioned it's not an oversight. It's just an exception for the sake of simple, quick gameplay.

Grin. Over on RPG.net, we've got someone claiming the 4e rules are a "return to common sense" because he thinks you're expected to overrule the rules like this. In other words, he's claiming the designers wrote broken/incomplete rules in order to "empower the DM". Me, I'm with you. If it says "ranged", then I don't care about the fluff text; it's ranged and affects swarms as written.

The error I see, which is quite understandable given how you'd treat special cases and edge cases in earlier editions, is akin to the way some players (who probably came out the D&D tradition) interacted with Magic Cards after they first came out. In trying to decide whether something had flying, they'd look at the card. If the picture showed it flying or it was a bird, then logically it could fly. It didn't matter if 'flying' wasn't present as a keyword in the text, the game was treated like an RPG because - much like RPGs - each game element (a card) had a flavor and was some sort of exception with the rules. So from an RPG perspective, it made since that birds flew even if it wasn't on the card.

Ah, the days of "How can you scare a stone wall to death?" Good times, good times...

Offhand, what card had birds which didn't have flying?

(Speaking of swarms, the PCs faced murder crows (TOH 3) last night. When killed, they explode into an undead raven swarm. Oddly, no one was bored as hundreds of zombie ravens who can blind you while doing 5d6 damage without regard to AC or saves were pecking at their eyes. I guess I was running them wrong. Next time I use swarms, I'll be sure to make them more boring.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Grin. Over on RPG.net, we've got someone claiming the 4e rules are a "return to common sense" because he thinks you're expected to overrule the rules like this. In other words, he's claiming the designers wrote broken/incomplete rules in order to "empower the DM". Me, I'm with you. If it says "ranged", then I don't care about the fluff text; it's ranged and affects swarms as written.

Oh, well, I agree here. I would generally house rule only things that turn out to be broken (both in the "overpowered" and "underpowered" sense. "Common Sense" is only applied when the rules are ambigous.

Ah, the days of "How can you scare a stone wall to death?" Good times, good times...

Offhand, what card had birds which didn't have flying?

Maybe a Dire Ostrich?

(Speaking of swarms, the PCs faced murder crows (TOH 3) last night. When killed, they explode into an undead raven swarm. Oddly, no one was bored as hundreds of zombie ravens who can blind you while doing 5d6 damage without regard to AC or saves were pecking at their eyes. I guess I was running them wrong. Next time I use swarms, I'll be sure to make them more boring.)

Contrary to popular belief, just because certain aspects of rules are not liked (be it by a vocal minority, a real majority, or specific designers), this doesn't mean you should ensure you can't take enjoyment of the rules, either.

But, come on, a creature exploding into a swarm? That can never be boring! Unexpected things are rarely boring (except maybe unexpected boredom ).

 

[Ashardalon]

Offhand, what card had birds which didn't have flying?

Poor Whippoorwill is the offender here. Technically, Coastal Hornclaw, Darba, Hunting Moa, and Zodiac Rooster count as well.

 

[Mengu]

Can someone point me to a rundown of the Ratswarm stats, or post them here?

Edit: NM, found it.