Dark Sun returns

[Kaelik]

That's all RC ever fucking does. Is yell at players for being evil rules lawyers whenever some designer writes a shitty rule that is easily fixed.

[Doom]

The acid tripper gave me a laugh, though. If the damage can't be prevented by not being affected in the first place, by extension it couldn't be prevented by being out of range, either.

Planetwide Defilement FTW!

[erik]

RC it is not a matter of a split second shuffle of determining whether one is an ally. It is a matter of that one must be willing to take the damage. Of you do not want to take it then you will not.

I cannot imagine any player I know not wanting to be resourceful and use any sort of ally detection ability they could get their hands on. Hell that is better than alignment detection! I also never ran into problems with the "don't need sleep" or "dead can still act" arguments and my group is well aware of that goofiness.

So I soundly reject that there are equal levels (or in fact any level) of douchebaggery going on with ally detection as compared to needing no sleep.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The acid tripper gave me a laugh, though. If the damage can't be prevented by not being affected in the first place, by extension it couldn't be prevented by being out of range, either.

Planetwide Defilement FTW!

The first image I got was a conjurer with a spiked chain and a blindfold of true darkness.

[mean_liar]

Are you seriously arguing that the rules are fine because you can make houserules to fix them?

No, he's arguing that using a one-time general pre-game discussion of the power's intent combined with on-the-fly adjudication and will provide reasonable results for 99% of the situations you might encounter, which is good enough.

[RandomCasualty2]

Are you seriously arguing that the rules are fine because you can make houserules to fix them?

Um. no.. not at all. I'm arguing that this rules loophole is trivial and not a real threat to the game because it only becomes a problem if you run into someone deliberately trying to rape the rules with sleazy rules lawyering. That's the only time the rule is going to be a mechanical problem. Which means, you don't even really have to change it, you can just tell people not to try to abuse the rules like that.

I cannot imagine any player I know not wanting to be resourceful and use any sort of ally detection ability they could get their hands on. Hell that is better than alignment detection! I also never ran into problems with the "don't need sleep" or "dead can still act" arguments and my group is well aware of that goofiness.

Well right. And that's exactly what I'm saying. Groups don't run into the problem with the fact that you don't need sleep because the problem is pretty trivial. Yes, it's a loophole, and yes it should probably be fixed. But it's just not a big deal, because the only people who use it are people being disruptive to the game with annoying rules lawyer arguments. That's the same dead here.

As far as detecting allies, sure, you can try doing that, but if your new ally is an ally, he may be horrified at you trying to defile him. Alternately, you could just rule that you don't know if it damaged him or not. I mean, as a life force drain, it may just make him a little tired. So maybe you can't even tell that he took damage.. well at least until you actually kill him. Further, your ally may decide he wants to find new friends when you start defiling him solely to test his believability. I mean, defiling may not necessarily be lethal, but we can probably assume that it is rather unpleasant, and also may well be interpreted as a form of attack if your ally isn't too familiar with you, which is probably the case if you're checking to see if he's really your friend.

Not to mention if you're just looking for an ally detector, 4E has a lot better powers for that, which don't actually hurt the ally.

[Username17]

Um. no.. not at all. I'm arguing that this rules loophole is trivial and not a real threat to the game because it only becomes a problem if you run into someone deliberately trying to rape the rules with sleazy rules lawyering.

And you're still being a fucking idiot. Because the point is that who is and is not your ally is not clear. As people have repeatedly pointed out, there are a whole fuck tonne of creatures in the game who are ambiguously on your side. Including horses and onlookers.

Let's take the classic "green dot" character. He is tentatively on your side until you piss him off. So if your defilement damages him, he is a red dot. But if your defilement doesn't damage him, he had to already be a red dot. See the problem? It's a contradiction. If the guard is damaged, he's your enemy, but if the guard is not damaged, he's your enemy. But if you used a buff spell for allies, both you and he would want him included.

The game has a very simple and easy to adjudicate system for defining who is and is not an ally. But actually using it requires that all effects that affect allies are beneficial. If you make an effect that affects allies that is harmful, the in-game definition stops working and there is no replacement. And the questions brought up are unanswerable.

-Username17

[souran]

RC it is not a matter of a split second shuffle of determining whether one is an ally. It is a matter of that one must be willing to take the damage. Of you do not want to take it then you will not.

I cannot imagine any player I know not wanting to be resourceful and use any sort of ally detection ability they could get their hands on. Hell that is better than alignment detection! I also never ran into problems with the "don't need sleep" or "dead can still act" arguments and my group is well aware of that goofiness.

So I soundly reject that there are equal levels (or in fact any level) of douchebaggery going on with ally detection as compared to needing no sleep.

The detection thing is patently stupid. People are not looking at what this power actually does and only seeing that it hurts your allies.

We can all agree that because of the way the PHB has defined allies as willing targets that this power can create a problem.

Except, it doesn't have to create a problem if people do not do something that until the release of this power, they never did before which is try and figure out when you decide to be or not to be somebodies ally. If players just take the damage when the power is used there is no issue.

However, back to the "It can detect your foes!" stupidity. The power requires that you use a daily ATTACK power before you can use it. So no pulling all the suspects into a room and "just" defiling because as written you cannot do that. RC has pointed out the additional socail issues and dm mechanical get arounds. Finally, if we assume that players can choose to not be somebodies ally when it suits them then why couldn't a spy or thief or traitor "actually be your friend" just for the time when you are defiling.

So, yes the ability is frustratingly written because the term ally has been previously defined to mean willing. However, that would then mean that the game could never include any powers that result in damage to allies that do not damage everything. That might have been a good thing considering that it is likely to cause fights at the table, but it also limits the possible content of abilties.

Really, the issue is still that REROLLS have nothing to do with defiling. Honestly, we still don't know that much about the power anyway. Franks source shows a level 1 warlock defiler.

Maybe at paragon levels defeling lets you hurt enemies and allies, Maybe at epic levels it lets you do something else again. Preserving has not even been revealed. Unless there is nothing more then we have boring defiling and preserving is just the normal rules.

Honestly, defeling was about quick magic and preserving was about more magic.

The arcane power source should have its daily powers and/or its encounter powers on recharge (just like the monsters use for powers) in dark sun. A defelier can give up a remaining encounter or daily power use to instantly recharge a power of their choice. A preserver can try to recharge encounter powers after they have used their allotment per encounter at increasing difficulty. There, those are some rules that could be built upon that actually have something to do with defling/preserving and change magic considerably, just like dark sun did when it first came out. REROLLS have NOTHING to do with defeling and preserving and are a stupid mechanic for tying it too.

[RandomCasualty2]

And you're still being a fucking idiot. Because the point is that who is and is not your ally is not clear. As people have repeatedly pointed out, there are a whole fuck tonne of creatures in the game who are ambiguously on your side. Including horses and onlookers.

That may be true.. but seriously. So what? The important thing to note is that all the other PCs are your allies and the monsters aren't?

Everyone else? Well honestly is it a big deal? At some point you may pick up a prisoner that you rescued and you ask your DM "Hey does he count as an ally?" and your DM makes some ruling. Any ruling. and life goes on.

Let's take the classic "green dot" character. He is tentatively on your side until you piss him off. So if your defilement damages him, he is a red dot. But if your defilement doesn't damage him, he had to already be a red dot. See the problem? It's a contradiction.

No it's not. It just means that if you attack your ally he may become not your ally anymore. Nobody is saying that ally has to be a completely fixed state that never changes. Actions can certainly change it. If you fuck over your friend, he may not be your friend anymore, but he was your friend before up until that point. I'm not seeing any contradiction at all.

If the guard is damaged, he's your enemy, but if the guard is not damaged, he's your enemy. But if you used a buff spell for allies, both you and he would want him included.

If he's trying to kill you because he interpreted your defiling as an attack, then no, you probably don't want to buff him anymore.

The game has a very simple and easy to adjudicate system for defining who is and is not an ally. But actually using it requires that all effects that affect allies are beneficial. If you make an effect that affects allies that is harmful, the in-game definition stops working and there is no replacement. And the questions brought up are unanswerable.

Honestly, there really isn't a great system. Using "willing target" is stupid, because obviously anyone on team monster is going to call themselves willing for a buff. If the power is "enemies in area take X damage and allies in area heal with a surge" then obviously any monster is going to call itself an ally at that point. But that would be bad for the cleric casting that spell, because it means he can't hurt anyone with it.

Another way to handle it is just to let the caster himself decide who is an enemy and who is an ally, but considering some powers affect creatures you can't see, so that makes no sense either.

So pretty much the best way to determine enemy/ally is to just have the DM decide it and go from there. That's really how the 4E powers are written.

[A Man In Black]

Um. no.. not at all. I'm arguing that this rules loophole is trivial and not a real threat to the game because it only becomes a problem if you run into someone deliberately trying to rape the rules with sleazy rules lawyering. That's the only time the rule is going to be a mechanical problem. Which means, you don't even really have to change it, you can just tell people not to try to abuse the rules like that.

Oh. So you're arguing that you can just ban anyone who "ab"uses the rule from your game.

That's completely different.

[Murtak]

No, what RC says is that it is not really going to be a problem in most games because gentlemens' agreements. It certainly does not hurt that in this case the intent is obvious in most situations and where it is not, you just turn to the DM and have him roll a die or something.

And this really does work fine for most cases. Heck, people played 3rd and even 2nd Edition and managed to have fun. But while it works fine for most games, it also means everyone plays with different rules and of course you will run into the odd case where you do in fact create genuine conflict. But in most cases it really does not matter.

[erik]

Aw shit, the stupidity of 4e WotC forums has followed us home.

We can all agree that the rule is stupid as it ignores how ally/willing targets work in 4e.

We can all agree that the rule is stupid as it doesn't make any sense with regards to how defiling has ever worked.

We can all agree that the rule is stupid as it doesn't make any sense with regards to how any life draining power should ever work.

It breaks the 4th wall and does so in a stupid way that doesn't thematically or mechanically make any sense. It makes "ally" a testable mechanical condition despite any insistence that it can only be done in combat, that is clearly something that can still be done, even with the other existing 4th wall breaking stupidity of powers only usable in combat. The effect of a party of defilers will be noticeable. Hell, get enough defilers and you can make allies blooded, which is a very detectable state I imagine.

Ally before was simply defined as someone willing to receive a spell effect. Now it is forced into being something else, which is not clearly defined at all. A gentleman's agreement does nothing to clear up that confusion. I don't need to add to the list of likely situations where it is unclear who is an ally. That list is formidable already.

Illegal allied life draining for reroll as a rule does nothing good and everything bad. How can any jackass on here even consider defending it?

Stop defiling the board dammit.

[spasheridan]

I am curious to hear the fluff description WOTC will use to describe how a defiler actually defiles just his friends, and why it will still work when the defiler is all alone on a mountaintop.

[mean_liar]

There is no room for transcendence. The only option is to complain, endlessly, about this rule's shittiness until the end of time.

[RandomCasualty2]

Ally before was simply defined as someone willing to receive a spell effect.

No, it really never was.

If that's the definition you use, you've got bigger problems, since any effect that helps allies is automatically going to be something that the monsters want. So when your cleric has his "Do X damage to enemies in area and heal allies in area." Don't you think the monsters are willing to be healed instead of getting blasted? I know I sure would be.

With 4E, it's just not a good idea to let people switch ally/enemy off and on arbitrarily. You'll only lead to weird shit where monsters call themselves your friends so your affects don't hurt them.

Seriously, the best way to deal with it is to just let the DM decide whose an ally and whose an enemy. The moment you put it in the hands of an individual creature to choose who its enemies and allies are, the more confusing the game gets.

[Username17]

If that's the definition you use, you've got bigger problems, since any effect that helps allies is automatically going to be something that the monsters want.

Go dammit RC, stop being a moron. We quoted the relevant passage. The rulebook definition is that you choose them, and they are willing. That's what Ally means. It means that both you and the target want the target to be affected by the effect. That's it.

And that works for every single other printed effect. It's arbitrary, but it's consistent and it's functional and it leaves no room for error. And it cannot support this Defiling shit.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

RC, the entire point is that "allies" and "enemies" as defined in 4e are poorly thought-out tripe. It doesn't matter that a warlock can technically only target himself with a curse and that defiling doesn't function at all--we all know how the things in 4e are supposed to work. The entire point is that the developers can't actually write the rules in a way that makes sense.

[TOZ]

Or rather that you have to just blindly follow the directions without thinking about it so the glaring problems don't trip you.

[souran]

Go dammit RC, stop being a moron. We quoted the relevant passage. The rulebook definition is that you choose them, and they are willing. That's what Ally means. It means that both you and the target want the target to be affected by the effect. That's it.

And that works for every single other printed effect. It's arbitrary, but it's consistent and it's functional and it leaves no room for error. And it cannot support this Defiling shit.

-Username17

4e PHB wrote:

When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your team-mates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you.

While we are being nit picky there is Nothing in the relevant read passage that says that that ally effects require both YOU and the TARGET to be willing, only that the TARGET be willing.

It would seem that at least for AOE attacks, if you are willing to use the "ally is willing, people can switch at any time" interupration then monsters could indeed choose to be counted as allies to recieve the benefits of a buff spell cast over an area. A spell that is directly targeted obviously wouldn't be effected by this rule change becuase you select the target but anything that is aoe is subject to the ally/enemies willing target debacle.

Also note that by RAW ambivilance and/or neutrality puts you in the "Enemy" camp and subject to the "enemy" result. See the part about enemies being your "not allies" regardless of hostility level.


The rule is badly written, and almost certainly either has or will end up with additional rules and errata that clarify some of this mess.

[RandomCasualty2]

While we are being nit picky there is Nothing in the relevant read passage that says that that ally effects require both YOU and the TARGET to be willing, only that the TARGET be willing.

It would seem that at least for AOE attacks, if you are willing to use the "ally is willing, people can switch at any time" interupration then monsters could indeed choose to be counted as allies to recieve the benefits of a buff spell cast over an area. A spell that is directly targeted obviously wouldn't be effected by this rule change becuase you select the target but anything that is aoe is subject to the ally/enemies willing target debacle.

Well technically any power that targets "Enemies" is subject to this too. Because an enemy is anyone who isn't your ally. So by the definition in the PHB, anyone can declare themselves to be your ally at any time, by being "willing", And therefore because they're your ally, they can't be your enemy. So any power that only hits enemies is useless, because at any time the dude can just call himself a willing target, and fuck you over.

Now, of course, that's not actually a problem in real games, because the DM would just tell the PC who did to stop being a douchebag.

But as far as a mechanical rules standpoint, the rule is thoroughly fucked up.

[Psychic Robot]

The rule is badly written, and almost certainly either has or will end up with additional rules and errata that clarify some of this mess.

Just like the orbizard, right?

[RandomCasualty2]

The rule is badly written, and almost certainly either has or will end up with additional rules and errata that clarify some of this mess.

Just like the orbizard, right?

The orbizard isn't really badly written so much as imbalanced. The problem with the orbizard isn't ambiguity, it's just that his numbers are way over the top and show that the designers have a terrible grasp of the RNG and math.

This isn't surprising though, given that you can seriously take about 5 minutes projecting the suggesting monster damage values vs. PC hit points and see that level 30 combat is going to turn into padded sumo. That's before you factor in all the healing abilities too.

Seriously next time they redesign this game, they should hire a mathematician just to check their work, and by mathematician, I mean some guy who has passed the 8th grade.

[Lago PARANOIA]

(moved into another thread)

[Psychic Robot]

To bump. I'm looking at the stats for the Dragon of Tyr.

Level 33 solo controller. Gargantuan size with reach 4.

HP: 1216
AC: 47
Fort: 46
Ref: 43
Will: 47

Movement: 10 normal, 10 fly, 5 teleport.
Initiative: Doesn't roll initiative. Instead has three sets of initiative at 20, 30, and 40. Can't ready or delay actions.

Claw (at-will): +38 vs. AC. 6d8 + 14 damage. Target loses psychic/necrotic resistance (save ends).

Crippling Bite (at-will): +38 vs. AC. 6d10 + 8 damage. Target immobilized (save ends). Aftereffect: target is slowed (save ends).

Dragon's Defiling (at-will): Close burst 5. +36 vs. Fortitude. 4d10 + 9 necrotic damage.

Raking Claws (at-will): Close blast 4. +38 vs. AC. 4d8 + 13 damage. Targets slide two squares.

Defiling Death (recharge when dragon uses Dragon's Defiling): Ranged 10. +37 vs. Fortitude. 6d10 + 10 necrotic damage, ongoing 20 necrotic damage. After the first save, ongoing damage becomes 30 necrotic damage.

Breath of Shredding Sand (encounter): Dragon must be bloodied to use. Close blast 20. +37 vs. Reflex. 6d10 + 10 damage, half damage on a miss.

Telekinetic Pulse (encounter): Close burst 5. +37 vs. Fortitude. 6d10 + 8 damage, and targets pushed 5 squares and knocked prone. Half damage and targets pushed 3 squares on a miss.

Psionic Uplift (at-will move action): Dragon pushes each adjacent enemy 2 squares and flies its speed + 2.

Lashing Tail (trigged at-will): Enemy ends its movement within 4 squares of the dragon. +37 vs. Reflex. 6d8 + 14 damage, and target is knocked prone.

Bloodied Pulse (triggered encounter): Dragon is bloodied and recharges Telekinetic Pulse and then uses it.

Is it just me, or is that a ridiculous quantity of information to keep track of?

[Kaelik]

So basically:

40: Dragon Defiling Move action Psionic Uplift
30: the one that recharges that. Move action Psionic Uplift
20: Dragon Defiling Move action Psionic Uplift

And every time they end within 4 squares, tail attacks.

And once per encounter The Telekinetic burst for free.

I don't know what average resist values are, but it seems like there is no reason to ever use anything but Dragon Defiling, because that is the shit.