What the heck is "Unfun"?

[helium3]

Of course you have this, because other than a bag of holding, the next best item in the core rules holds 60 arrows.

Well, actually you can't put arrows in a bag of holding. The 3.X specifically state you can't put anything in it that might pierce it. Talk about UNFUN!!

 

[Gallo22]

Right, right. Now keep doing that. And after the fight, work out the following: all arrows which hit are destroyed. Half of the arrows which missed are destroyed under normal circumstances. Double check with your DM whether you are in abnormal circumstances, like shooting at a sea serpent, that would cause your arrows to become lost at a higher rate. The remaining arrows may be salvaged. Replace them in your quiver. Then go to your larger backup storage of arrows and top off your quiver. Mark down how much your backup storage has diminished. You DO have one, right? You didn't go adventuring into the Underdark with just 60 arrows, right? Of course you didn't. So mark off how many of the nearly 2000 arrows in your backup have been used.

That's what you have to do. Its not mentally challenging, its just time consuming, and it doesn't do anything important! It just determines whether you spend 10 gp or 12 gp the next time you get to town! You aren't going to run out because you have a bag of holding stuffed with arrows anyways. Of course you have this, because other than a bag of holding, the next best item in the core rules holds 60 arrows. And that's nonviable for a lengthy trip because even at level 6 you'll use that up in 20 rounds of full rapid shooting fire.

Honestly, at higher levels I'd be happy to just pay 100 gp every time I got to town in order to avoid having to mess with the whole matter.

Time consuming for you maybe. Here's how we do it.

Archer: "Oh DM, I used up 13 arrows how many was I able to retrieve?"

I (being the DM) answer "you were able to retrieve 7, 2 can be repaired (see I'm letting my character use his knowledge skill to fix arrows in the "dungeon of no-arrows") and the other 4 are completely usless.

Done!! And it only took about 18 seconds. Now, while talking to another character about something else, the archer can add in his arrows on his sheet.

 

[gizmo33]

awww, come on that's no fun... Someone actually gives into you and you give up?

Someone gave up? All I see are people harassing other people and those people deciding it's not worth it. Sensible IMO.

 

[Gallo22]

Hah! As another who works in the legal profession, I concur. But they SHOULD require extraordinary proof, darn it all!

I know a skilled word-smith when I seen one!!!!

 

[DM_Jeff]

Now save and don't move spells can suck if you fail but suck it up. I am sorry but I do find it to be a little whiney when I hear I had to sit out the combat because I rolled a 1 on my save. As a player I would hate to see that because those spells can come in handy.

As for bookkeeping I have played plenty of archers and I never had an issue of keeping track of arrows. Even at high levels. I like the aspect of the chance of running out it makes you have to think and plan. The same as I like the idea of the party running out of food or water in some situations that can really add to the drama of the game.

Quoted you ElfWitch for a very well written post. I agree with all your statements.

Use caution about using words like "think" or "plan", however. Elsewhere here on En World when I tried explaining that these problems are overcome with thinking or planning I was nearly shot as being a troll claiming people are stupid. :\

-DM Jeff

 

[Gallo22]

Quoted you ElfWitch for a very well written post. I agree with all your statements.

Use caution about using words like "think" or "plan", however. Elsewhere here on En World when I tried explaining that these problems are overcome with thinking or planning I was nearly shot as being a troll claiming people are stupid. :\

-DM Jeff

Ditto, very well said Elfwitch!!!!

 

[KarinsDad]

That's not precisely what was said, now was it? My opinion: If you need to invent your own play aids to make a rule work smoothly, then either 1) the play aids should be core, or 2) the rule should be revised.

Actually if you go back and reread all of those posts, I said #1 and you said #2.

Now, you are saying either. Which is reasonable.

But, I don't need #2 in 4E if #1 works (which it does).


The problem in the case of skills like Search is that they are either rolled, or they are assumed to work. In the case that they are not assumed to work, a roll is typically required. The fact that many rolls might be required because the skill might be used many times means that at best the non-important rolls can be ignored until a different "meta-rule" is created that allows for partial success of multiple rolls over a period of time.

For example, finding the first and fifth traps, but not finding two through four with a single roll. How the designers would be able to come up with a simple system to handle that, however, is beyond me. So, I vote for #1 until a good #2 comes along (which I suspect will not happen, at least not in 4E).

 

[KarinsDad]

As a side note, my wife's Monk, by definition, is assumed to always be using Flurry of Blows for a full round attack unless she states otherwise. The reason for this is that on her turn, she just starts rolling without saying anything. That's her personality. As DM, I do not have to ask her every time if she is using Flurry or not, she just is. The attacks are always at -2. We just know this at our table. And if my wife wants to not take that penalty, she has to say so up front. If she misses by 1, she cannot just claim after the fact that she wasn't using flurry this time.

The reason for personalized game aid house rules like this is that it streamlines the flow of the game. Why ask questions about the same speed bump every time if it is not necessary?

Ditto for Searching for traps.

Ditto for our Druid using his Scimitar two handed (always, unless he states otherwise).

A lot of things people are claiming are annoyances and time wasters in the game system are really them not using game aids to minimize those annoyances.

I personally think the designers should list various game aids in the DMG for 4E, just to make this type of thing easier.


As an example from a different game system, Heroes has a sidebar in the book stating that a GM can knock out mooks when a solid hit is scored. So, instead of keeping the mook up, even though he has 2 Stun points remaining, the GM can just knock him over.

That works well for a cinematic super heroes game. It might not work for a particular DND game, but then again, it could.

There is nothing that states that when the Ogre is knocked down to 2 hit points with a 17 point shot, that the DM cannot just kill it.

Does it really matter whether the Ogre is at 2 hits or -2 hits? For some DMs, it does matter. For others, what's the big deal?


Any game aid that makes the game run smoother for a particular group is ok as long as it works for that group. That doesn't mean that rules need to be changed. It means that play habits should be examined for ways to improve the experience for every player. Sometimes house rules can do this, sometimes game aids can do this. Sometimes (like in the case of Turn Undead), the rule should probably be changed.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

In the first example, the use of the word "you" pretty much unambiguously applies to you and not some group. Maybe that person should be riding a bike. Or maybe he should stick to the topic instead of having weird opinions about what your hobbies should be.

In the second example, the person is telling you that they don't like to play games on God mode. The statement is difficult to argue with but also logically irrelevant to your gaming style. I think it's rude to insinuate that you play on "God mode" and not come out and say it so that you have a chance to refute it. Proving the existence of "God mode" though would be beside the point.

"Winning is meaningless if you can't lose": again, this statement stands on it's own, it's not about how you are or what you're doing. If you don't agree with the statement seems easy enough to say so. You can say "Winning is meaningful, even if you can't lose, and here's why." Or you can challenge the premise: "people can lose in my game, so your statement, while true, is not applicable to this coversation".

None of these things require complicated proofs of the existence of people. That being said, the examples you gave are examples of rudeness. Using logic might be a waste of one's time in this case. I'm not saying you should put up with rudeness, and that's as someone who probably disagree with you on the substance of many of these particular topics.

This is getting well into the realm of arguing for it's own sake. None of your suggestions is "better" than saying "is anyone saying what you are arguing "against" here?" and I'm not going to debate preferences on how to have a discussion with you.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Well, actually you can't put arrows in a bag of holding. The 3.X specifically state you can't put anything in it that might pierce it. Talk about UNFUN!!

That just means you can't stick loose arrows in there. You stick whole extra quivers in the BoH, silly.