I Hate Bards

[UngainlyTitan]

I can't count how many I've been in the middle of a negotiation, with the support of the majority of the party, only to have one player screw us over by starting a battle. It doesn't matter which way it swings, to a fight or away from one, it's selfish when one person derails the situation for everyone else.

I understand you frustration but the DM pusishing by witholding xp is not going to resolve anything the players should resolve the issue, either in character or out. The DM can voice an opinion but in that case it just another opinion.

 

[Felon]

I'm not getting the whole 'your player is being abusive' and 'you are letting them walk all over you' responses.all.

I think some folks might just be projecting their own baggage onto this scenario. It's not like the OP himself is portrarying the player in a negative light.

 

[Kralin Thornberry]

This is true, but it does not cover the central point.

To use -any- power on someone, targetted or not, you have to have line of effect to them.

Teleportation effects are no exception to that general rule.

Oh, I'm not arguing that point, that to use a power you must have LoS/LoE, I agree 100%. But it is the effect from the power that is in question, and the power does not explicitly say "1 or 2 allies that can be seen in a 5 square radius from the target".

The power did hit the target, and the effected character was within 5 squares.

Is it clear? Yep, clear as mud!

I wouldn't say that this is an example of a game-breaking power myself. It does show that there is a vagueness in the rules that needs to be clarified before hand.

Personally, if I were going to use that power, I would have asked for the DM's ruling before I did it, just to avoid a situation like this.

Of course, what he did was heroic, and used the power to save a party member, so as a DM, I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

I mean, c'mon, he DID know where the effected/teleported party member was...

 

[ZeroAtom3]

Concerning the Incident

The only thing about dying that would have actually bothered me was that it wasnt a very important part of the story to be going out and any explanation for a rerolled character coming in would have felt forced

Also I would like to point out I was actually swallowed twice by the purple worm during the course of the battle

As far as the the beetle battle we always prep for battle in most situations but sometimes we go the other way and use diplomacy but its still nice to put ourselves in a tactically sound position regardless

I am also not the player that was arguing about the whole situation as I tend to want to just progress the story more so than worrying about my xp or loot

 

[DracoSuave]

Oh, I'm not arguing that point, that to use a power you must have LoS/LoE, I agree 100%. But it is the effect from the power that is in question, and the power does not explicitly say "1 or 2 allies that can be seen in a 5 square radius from the target".

The power did hit the target, and the effected character was within 5 squares.

Is it clear? Yep, clear as mud!

And without Line of Effect, the ally cannot be affected! Does the power state an exception to that rule? No? Does teleportation state an exception to that rule? No?

Then it is clear. Not in line of effect = cannot be affected. That isn't hard.

I wouldn't say that this is an example of a game-breaking power myself. It does show that there is a vagueness in the rules that needs to be clarified before hand.

The absence of an exception to the rules is not a vagueness in the rules. It's an invitation to bother using the rule to begin with.

Personally, if I were going to use that power, I would have asked for the DM's ruling before I did it, just to avoid a situation like this.

On this I do agree.

Of course, what he did was heroic, and used the power to save a party member, so as a DM, I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

Me either, if the campaign tone is "over-heroic" enough. If it's gritty and grimdark, I would not.

I mean, c'mon, he DID know where the effected/teleported party member was...

Knowledge and ability are two different words. Your bard might know where he is, but is, by the rules, absolutely helpless to affect that individual. Majestic words won't work, direct magic placed upon that individual to protect or bolster them does nothing. Why would a teleportation?

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, regarding the said teleportation was legal by RAW or not. It seems that it is something of gray zone. And IMHO that is not a simple question regarding teleport but also various beneficial to allies rider effects (say, if a cleric hits the said purple worm with his Healing Strike, can a swallowed character spend a healing surge?).

But anyway, there always be some gray zones in the rules. Also, it often happens that players uses powers or rules which a DM does not know well, or can't make a quick "by RAW" adjudication for a certainty. 4e is a case specific game system and there are far more powers and abilities than a DM can master.

Make a quick adjudication. And do it for PCs' benefit when there are any doubts. And give them usual XP even if the combat ended in unexpected way for you. They have used their resources and brain and solved the challenge. Then, after each session, talk with your friends.

It is not a good idea to be bound by the table rule such as "Once the DM made an adjudication in one way, that should be used forever." That kind of consistency is not needed for having better gaming experiences.

Instead discuss with your friends after each gaming session and decide how your play group will solve the same or similar situation in the next session and after. And, until that adjudication start to cause big problems, continue to use that adjudication. This kind of "consistency" is enough, and usually better, for having fun.

 

[Jack99]

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.

 

[Shin Okada]

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.

The problem is, the word "target" and how it is affected by Line of Effect are basically only clearly defined in case of attacks. And some attacks have some rider effects which affects on non-targets of that attack.

For example, in case of Healing Strike (Cleric Encounter Attack 1) it's "target" line clearly states that the power's attack's target is one creature. Then "In addition, you or one ally within 5 squares of you can spend a healing surge." In this case, the one spends a healing surge is not the target of the attack. Is he the target of the power or something? Not clear, AFAIK no rule defines that.

Same can be said for any other powers which has some rider effect which affects on non-target of the attack, such as Cleave or Victim of the Feywild powers.

It is indeed a complicated problem which each each play groups should adjudicate by themselves.

 

[Gradine]

I can't think of any way I would have adjudicated that battle any differently. Oh sure, there's fairly good arguments to be made that the teleport wasn't allowable by RAW, but so? Isn't abusing loopholes for fun and profit (and, in this case, saving their comrade) part of the Bard's shtick? Bards scam people; I'd be actually impressed by the player's clever little attempt at a meta-scam. In a campaign that allows itself completely non-serious moments, this would certainly qualify as one of those moments.

In fact, I propose renaming this thread: "Bard Bends Rules For Party Benefit; World Feigns Shock"

Also, as a DM I like seeing the players succeed. Crazy, I know! Of course it's vital to temper that with a realistic level of danger, but if my options are "let a player get away with what is probably not RAW but seems ambiguous enough in the moment" or "kill a PC that's become an established part of the campaign", I tend to lean towards the former.

 

[Jack99]

The problem is, the word "target" and how it is affected by Line of Effect are basically only clearly defined in case of attacks. And some attacks have some rider effects which affects on non-targets of that attack.

For example, in case of Healing Strike (Cleric Encounter Attack 1) it's "target" line clearly states that the power's attack's target is one creature. Then "In addition, you or one ally within 5 squares of you can spend a healing surge." In this case, the one spends a healing surge is not the target of the attack. Is he the target of the power or something? Not clear, AFAIK no rule defines that.

Same can be said for any other powers which has some rider effect which affects on non-target of the attack, such as Cleave or Victim of the Feywild powers.

It is indeed a complicated problem which each each play groups should adjudicate by themselves.

I am sorry, but should not *that* complicated. Line of Effect means something. The rules clearly state that there must be LoE for powers to have effect on targets (unless otherwise noted).

On one hand, you have the most logical explanation possible (riders of powers work as powers), and on the other hand, you have an interpretation that breaks said rule (riders work the opposite of the powers they are part off).

Why would you even assume that this rule doesn't apply to riders of said powers on said targets?