Sacrificial Bunnies (Warlock curse question)

[baberg]

P.S. 7 pages. Only 3 more to go till my prediction comes true! Derren, my boy, you've still got the touch!

I actually was wondering how this thread got so huge - We pretty much nailed it down in the first page. Then I saw people quoting Darren and Regicide and realized it was another one of "those" threads.

The final answer: DM discretion.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Wow, it's amazing how a good troll can get people arguing over a clearly defined rule or aspect of the game. Bravo sir, bravo!

 

[Regicide]

Because Warlords work by inspiration. It's inspiring to hear a Warlord shout "For Glory!" when charging a ravenous lion.

Deaf characters who aren't even looking at the Warlord when he charges get the same benefit.

 

[Derren]

I actually was wondering how this thread got so huge - We pretty much nailed it down in the first page. Then I saw people quoting Darren and Regicide and realized it was another one of "those" threads.

The final answer: DM discretion.

Its not my fault that instead of answering questions and discussing things some people post "u r stupid" and "OMG troll" posts.

 

[Kordeth]

...lagomorph pogrom...

This phrase, right here, made the eight pages worth it.

 

[Praesul]

The final answer: DM discretion.

True that.

 

[jensun]

Its not my fault that instead of answering questions and discussing things some people post "u r stupid" and "OMG troll" posts.

I think I may just die of irony.

 

[Kishin]

Deaf characters who aren't even looking at the Warlord when he charges get the same benefit.

"Get up Rock, cause Micky loves ya!" if they're unconscious.

Also, they can still see the Warlord looking all charismatic. Maybe they feel his aura if they're blind and deaf. Its not a simulationist game.

Its not my fault that instead of answering questions and discussing things some people post "u r stupid" and "OMG troll" posts.

As was pointed out, the question was answered in the first page. You really didn't contribute anything to the discussion by reiterating your same '4E is the terrible because its paradigm is rooted in metagame/gamist issues rather than simulationism' speech.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Its not my fault that instead of answering questions and discussing things some people post "u r stupid" and "OMG troll" posts.

Man, I've replied twice with the same statement. Essentially: 4E kindly asks players to play reasonably, and ignore lame exploits. They even made a rule forbidding lame exploits--just so everything is crystal clear.

The bag of bunnies doesn't work because it's dumb. It also doesn't work because it's against the rules.

That's all there is to it. That's the end of the discussion.

 

[Derren]

As was pointed out, the question was answered in the first page. You really didn't contribute anything to the discussion by reiterating your same '4E is the terrible because its paradigm is rooted in metagame/gamist issues rather than simulationism' speech.

As the "Credible Threat" is more of a guideline than a rule as it does not have any hard rules associated to it I just offered a different perspective of how to deal with this situation and pointed out the, in my eyes, problems with the gameist approach.

Man, I've replied twice with the same statement. Essentially: 4E kindly asks players to play reasonably, and ignore lame exploits. They even made a rule forbidding lame exploits--just so everything is crystal clear.

And what is reasonably? What is when a vodoo themed warlock wants to sacrifice a chicken so that he can use its death to open a channel to the spirit world which he can use to communicate with the spirits and ask them for gifts?
What if a evil/unaligned PC warlock in a bar brawl kills an innocent bystander (no credible threat) to get some backup from his devil masters? Are those unreasonable situations?