Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 4484713" data-attributes="member: 53980">IMO, it's not really metagaming in the typical sense.  I see it as these abilities having in-game effects that are then mirrored with the meta-knowledge that the players need in order to make informed decisions about their characters.For example, with Hellish Rebuke the target might see their own pain reflected in the flickering eyes of the warlock who burned them, warning them of the consequences of their actions (I mean, of course, before the warlock even gets struck).In the case of Riposte Strike, even the flavor-text describes it as knocking an opponent off balance, leaving them open to a counterattack.  I certainly don't think that it is metagaming to know that my character has just been dealt a blow that knocked an exploitable gap in his defenses.Players are not their characters.  Even with the greatest DM in the world, details are likely to be left out; things that the characters might notice and understand relative to themselves but that the players don't (since we don't live day-to-day in a fantasy setting).  It's all well and nice for a DM to describe my character being hit by a Riposte Strike as "having been knocked off balance," but that tells me very little as a player unless it is coupled with a mechanical explanation.  After all, "knocked off balance" could be expressed mechanically as any number of effects: you grant combat advantage, next time you attack you must make an athletics check or fall prone, or even that you might be open to counterattack.  The character is probably thinking, "I'm in trouble, damned if I do and damned if I don't," assuming that he even has time to think, but lacking that same first-person viewpoint the player needs a mechanical understanding of what is happening if he is to react as befits that character.  At least until technology reaches a point where we can be our characters.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Keep in mind that creatures are no longer mindless in 4e.  Some, like Zombies and Oozes, are dumb as a bag of rocks (Int 1) while others, like golems, are just extremely unintelligent (Int 3).  But they all have some capacity for logic and decision-making.  That said, there's nothing wrong with playing a stupid monster as stupid.  Sure, a zombie might on some level understand the consequences of attacking the warlock after suffering a Hellish Rebuke, but there's nothing to say (aside from you, the DM) that this will actually deter it.  It is an extremely dumb monster and if it attacks anyway, destroying itself attempting to strike down the warlock, so be it.  Heck, playing some monsters as making unexpected or illogical decisions can help keep your players on their toes.If an intelligent foe decides to seek a different opponent after being the recipient of a Hellish Rebuke, I'd say the power has pulled it's weight there as well.Finally, there are still plenty of gotcha powers in the game, they just come in the form of interrupts.</blockquote>

Verification