Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5088563" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't have a problem with the ruling, per se, but I do have a problem with the reason for the ruling ("Well, the rules say 1 creature, and the door isn't a creature, so no"). The main problem I see is one that 4e actually has pretty deep down: naming conventions and flavor. If the Darkfire was not called "darkfire," it wouldn't give the impression of being, you know, fire. The player was mislead by a name that didn't match what the power actually did. Maybe if was called "Elfshine," or "Assassin's Halo" or something.Or, if Darkfire had evocative flavor text that described the phenomenom (which seems more like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo's_fire" target="_blank">St. Elmo's Fire</a> kind of fire than the literal fire kind of fire), then a player who read the effect would know that it was a heatless kind of flame, more of a light than an actual fire. Or, even if Darkfire had a reason why only creatures can be targeted ("conjures the light of a living soul to the surface" or something), the reason for the ruling would make sense.Using a fiddly bit of rules language to deny the player is weak. It kind of inspires the "Oh no, I have to pay very close attention to every little word on my card" phenomena. Which is fun for D&D gearheads, sure, but not usually so fun for newbies and casual players. If this were my game, I can see one of two things happening, depending on how charitable I'm feeling:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> "Actually, Darkfire is more of an illumination, kind of a flickering halo that makes enemies in the darkness more visible. It's not a literal fire. Bad name. But if, say, you meet some enemies skulking around in the shadows, Darkfire will help you see them and hit them better." (Explaining the term a little better, giving an example of where you might want to use it; it's not the player's fault the power has a lousy name and unhelpful flavor text). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> "Well, it's fire, right? But it doesn't do any damage or anything, so the heat it generates is pretty low. It would be kind of like trying to melt ice with your breath. Slow going. You could probably chip it off with your sword faster." (Yes, but..., combined with a suggestion for solving the problem the player is trying to solve; and now the player knows that they can use elfshine to keep themselves warm!)</li> </ol>I'm not sure this is so much an example of "Statistically Speaking"/videogame think as it is a case of rules/flavor/text mismatch. Player understandably thinks the power does something it doesn't do. Either give the power that ability, or explain it more clearly than the rules have, don't appeal to the rules as if it was the player's fault. Hacking at the ice should totally work (jaws of the wolf!). THAT is more videogame than the Darkfire thing. ("Oh, I can only hack at things that are creatures? I can't choose to attack other things?") Though I did like how he eventually just gave the player the answer to his little bottleneck, so it didn't quite turn into a game of "Guess What The DM Is Thinking." He kept it rolling OK, but the fact that there was a bottleneck to begin with is a little rough. But, honestly, I saw a lot of things in that little video that made me question a lot of the underlying assumptions of D&D as a game, seeing the reactions of the new players to the stuff going on. Lots of math. "STOP MOVING AND ROLL" for a low DC. It certainly solidified my stance against minis, for one. <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=";)" />Some good stuff, too. The turning fire-trap is good, and the specific mention of hitting the drums is a subtle tactical recomendation.</blockquote>

Verification