I’m Thinking of Giving 4e Another Shot

[Jack99]

He can't? So it's a dagger per enemy?

Yeah, he better have quick-draw.

 

[wedgeski]

I didn't think about wish-lists until the 4E books mentioned them, at which point I had a tiny little epiphany and thought back over all the loot I had given to my players over the years, all the selling they had done, and all the gold they had spent on what they actually wanted.

I started using them immediately. I find it pretty easy to justify in game terms, but I won't rehash that argument here... suffice to say, my players much prefer to dig things out of a treasure chest that they can actually put straight on and *use*.

 

[Pbartender]

It appears that we don’t share the same definition of narrativist.

I don’t mind a bit of adlib or after the result description but a player deciding results outside the agency of his character is something I want to avoid.

People usually call me Sam.

I think I got it, Sam...

So, for example...

Say a combat encounter occurs in the middle of a forest, and a Fighter successfully uses Shield Bash (a bit of damage + force him back one square + knock him prone) on oppenent.

If, after the fact, the player describes it as, "I press my advantage and maneuver the enemy so that he trips on an exposed root of a nearby tree," you would probably not have a problem with it.

But, if he instead described it as, "The exceedingly clumsy enemy trips over a root as stumbles backward before falling down," or, "I shout 'Boo!' an the startled enemy stumbled backward in fright until he trips and falls down," you probably have a problem with it, yes?

I can understand your concern about it. I used to hate it too, but have become much less stringent about it than I used to be... So long as what the players are adding fits the situation and environment, I don't mind if the players add a few minor details of their own. After all, it's their story too.

My players are to the point where they'll ask about such things before they start describing... "Wait! Is there an exposed tree root nearby? Or maybe some loose stones?" I'm hoping it'll help to solve that thinking outside the box problem I mentioned earlier.

Anyway, my original point was that, if you let the players vary the description of how their martial dailies work, based on the scene and the situation at hand, the problem of explaining why it can only be done once per day can become much less of a problem. While the mechanical effect is the same each time, the descriptive effect is unique to each scene, turning the daily power into an impromptu tactic from the perspective of the character (but not necessarily the player) that would only work that once in that particular set of circumstances... Bah! Does that makes any sense?

 

[Obryn]

He can't? So it's a dagger per enemy?

Yes, unless it's magical. By the time they get Blinding Barrage, though, every rogue should have a magic dagger.

But how would you describe it when a rogue using a magical dagger attacks several incorporeal creatures with 'Blinding Barrage'? Or constructs?

Well, as a DM, you have a few options. You could always say, "Sorry, that won't work against these guys," but I try not to go that route...

First, let's assume you're using a magic dagger. If you're going after several foes, you can (1) assume that it follows one path and hits all of them before returning to you; or (2) it's very quick and you make several throws within your turn.

As for the types of creatures you're fighting... If you're looking at incorporeal foes, they still tend to have eyes of some sort. If you can hit their incorporeal 'flesh', I don't see why you can't hit their incorporeal 'eyes' to blind them briefly.

Constructs, too, are usually built with eyes of some sort. I have no problem with a rogue damaging them.

If it's crucial that a creature be un-blindable I'd suggest just giving them blindsight. Otherwise, they have to have some way of getting visual information. In D&D, this usually means eyes - even for non-fleshy creatures.

-O

 

[Rechan]

Yes, unless it's magical. By the time they get Blinding Barrage, though, every rogue should have a magic dagger.

It's a level 1 daily. Rogues should start out with a magic dagger?

 

[Obryn]

It's a level 1 daily. Rogues should start out with a magic dagger?

DOH! I was thinking it was a Level 5 daily for some reason.

In that case - no, they don't, necessarily.

 

[Piratecat]

Back on topic, por favor.

 

[Herschel]

I'll be the first to admit there are a number of wonky things in 4E that I REALLY hated the concept or flavor of early on, and some still bug me from that standpoint.

However, as a game 4E just runs so well as both a player and a DM. Prep time for the DM has been reduced almost exponentially and the characters all have numerous options while still being "forgiving" of initial build "errors".

 

[Samuel Leming]

Notice that there's nothing the books detail that you buy outside of equipment.

Muchlike in 3e. Outside of "Hire someone to do something" and things like horses/carriages/clothes... wasn't much to spend cash on.

Material component costs is the equivalent of ritual cost components.

These are role playing games taking place in completely imaginary worlds. Why would these worlds be limited to just the things listed in the rules books? Why would this thought even cross your mind?

I don't understand your point of view at all.

 

[Samuel Leming]

I think I got it, Sam...

So, for example...

Say a combat encounter occurs in the middle of a forest, and a Fighter successfully uses Shield Bash (a bit of damage + force him back one square + knock him prone) on oppenent.

If, after the fact, the player describes it as, "I press my advantage and maneuver the enemy so that he trips on an exposed root of a nearby tree," you would probably not have a problem with it.

Depending upon the description of this 'Shield Bash' I may be OK with it. Why is it called Shield Bash if you don't need a shield and you don't bash anyone with it?

I'd probably be OK with it but I'd prefer "I'm going to try to push him over that tree root with my shield" to "Got him! I did it by pushing him over that tree root with my shield". Tradition, you know.

I've googled Shield Bash. It's Str + 2 vs Ref and you have to have a shield. It's a first level encounter martial power. I'd still need some kind of explanation why you could only use this power once and then have to stunt the rest of the fight if he wants to push people over roots.

But, if he instead described it as, "The exceedingly clumsy enemy trips over a root as stumbles backward before falling down,"

You’re right, I don't like that. I don't see where the character did anything to cause the enemy to trip. There's no in character action here.

I don't want to run or play in a narrativist version of D&D where a player can spend a 'plot point' to just arbitrarily add a door and treasure room to a dungeon.

or, "I shout 'Boo!' an the startled enemy stumbled backward in fright until he trips and falls down," you probably have a problem with it, yes?

I may be OK with this one since there's obvious IC action here, but it sounds more like a Cha vs Will stunt instead of a shield bash.