[4e] Those lying liars.

[Windjammer]

Interesting. Someone took my Chris Perkins post, condensed it into a two-liner, and posted it over at Enworld. The ensuing havoc and edition warring is ... let's say intruiging.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Chris Perkins explanation for why Darkfire didn't work was bad "Darkfire only targets a creature" however a better reason would be that Darkfire isn't actually fire and does no damage, it's like Faerie Fire from previous editions.

[RobbyPants]

Exactly. Had he simply said that, no one would have cared.

[Kaelik]

Exactly. Had he simply said that, no one would have cared.

Actually, the PCs would have cared, in that one of them would have said "Oh, then instead I use my magic missile to break down the door! Or my AoE fire at will, or whatever."

And then he would have had to explain that objects are immune to damage, because... Well, if you could break the door, then I wouldn't be able to force you to follow the plot.

[souran]

And then he would have had to explain that objects are immune to damage, because... Well, if you could break the door, then I wouldn't be able to force you to follow the plot.

Except this is wrong. There are lots of destroyable things, activatable things and objects that you have to attack in published adventures. This adventure. However, the second half, about foring them to follow the plot is dead on. Its a statement about Perkins as gamemaster though.

The thing is that this whole arguement over weather darkfire could break down that particular door is ignoring one really important point.

Chris Perkins wanted the players to use the "open the door" object in the room. He was railroading. He was not even doing it particularly well because he created a situation where players will be unable to open future doors by saying that they batter at them with spells and weapons.

Considering that numeruos adventures published in dragon magizine have destroyable scenary, including doors, that are simply given hp and let the players go at it to wreck them this interupration by MR. Perkins is retarded.

However, if you think that the problem is "they are playing 4e dungeons and dragons, if they were playing 3e they could have used magic to destroy the door"

Then you are delusional. That door would have been warded and indestuctable to everythign short of adamantium....except for the ballista.

A game master who rail roads the players says almost nothing about the system because they will say that the rules work however they need them to work right now to get you to make the choice they want you to make.

However, it does say something about the gamemaster. It tells me that the next time I go to a Con, NOT to sign up for any of his games....

[RandomCasualty2]

Chris Perkins explanation for why Darkfire didn't work was bad "Darkfire only targets a creature" however a better reason would be that Darkfire isn't actually fire and does no damage, it's like Faerie Fire from previous editions.

Yeah, though that'll just lead people to just try other powers. "Well okay, I'll use my melee basic attack on it" and there's no way he can get away with saying that someone's axe can't damage an object for an arbitrary reason.

He'd really be best off just saying that the fire wasn't hot enough and didn't work.

The best way to handle a puzzle like that is have it require a daily power to work. So you either expend resources getting through the door with your daily power, or save resources by using the smart way.

[souran]

Chris Perkins explanation for why Darkfire didn't work was bad "Darkfire only targets a creature" however a better reason would be that Darkfire isn't actually fire and does no damage, it's like Faerie Fire from previous editions.

Yeah, though that'll just lead people to just try other powers. "Well okay, I'll use my melee basic attack on it" and there's no way he can get away with saying that someone's axe can't damage an object for an arbitrary reason.

He'd really be best off just saying that the fire wasn't hot enough and didn't work.

The best way to handle a puzzle like that is have it require a daily power to work. So you either expend resources getting through the door with your daily power, or save resources by using the smart way.

Or if you are not a total Novice DM and you realize that your party would have more fun Smashing the door to bits with their powers than having somebody get to roll siege weapon damage you just run with it.

Sure the darkfire breaks down the door. If your "plot" way of getting past the door is to smash it down why do you care how they do it. If you are really that hard on for the ballista let the monsters have extra time to get rienforced and add a few extra minions to the next battle or whatever.

Honestly, the problem here is not the rule set, its the fat ass in the chair who refused to dm the story his players are creating in the adventure because he has a printed page in front of him. This failing exists for lots of rpgs, not just dnd, and usually dnd adventures are pretty good about saying "read the whole adventure first moron and if your players do something creative run with it." Even the pre published 4e adventures say this in the introduction so its NOT a system issue.

This is how the fuck did this guy get to be on the staff of a company that makes rpgs if he is that inflexable as a dm issue.

[RandomCasualty2]

Sure the darkfire breaks down the door. If your "plot" way of getting past the door is to smash it down why do you care how they do it.

Well, mainly because it's interesting to have some puzzles in the game. You want people to think outside the box. The last resort inefficient method should be using the conventional method, which is just firing powers at it, since thats the most obvious solution, given it's how you solve every problem.

And honestly, that's one thing I rather hate about 4E is the fact that your primary schticks always work. Sometimes it's actually nice if the best solution to a problem isn't just spamming the attack button until it goes away. And players who find alternate solutions should be rewarded.

It's actually a joke to call what the PCs did there something creative, I mean they solve all their problems by spamming dark fire at shit, using that on the door isn't creative at all. At the very least, I dont' think it's unreasonable to have that solution not be the best one.

[souran]

Well, mainly because it's interesting to have some puzzles in the game. You want people to think outside the box. The last resort inefficient method should be using the conventional method, which is just firing powers at it, since thats the most obvious solution, given it's how you solve every problem.

"Destroy this door to get past it" is not really a puzzle. Yes its a part of the exploration phase of the game, but its not really a puzzle that requires you to analyze different options.

Hell, if the door required the "blue key" that was somewhere else in the dungeon that is almost more puzzle than "break down this door"

Is "use darkfire to destroy the door" efficient, or elegant? No. On the other hand, destroying the door with an ability or power and destroying it with a tool are fairly similar. It probably doesn't invalidate the expected situation on the other side of the door based on the way the module is written.

ON the other hand, if the players drill a small hole in the door and then have somebody teleport to the other side and quitely open the door for them, the adventures expected path is probably quite out of step with the way the remaining encounters are described.

And honestly, that's one thing I rather hate about 4E is the fact that your primary schticks always work. Sometimes it's actually nice if the best solution to a problem isn't just spamming the attack button until it goes away. And players who find alternate solutions should be rewarded.

Except, if your schtick doesn't work then you have nothing to do. The idea that some builds should be totally ineffective in certain fights is a BAD one. Also, this idea that somehow 4e schticks always work and that 3e characters were not EVEN WORSE in this regard is silly.

A 3e Trip star character is going to try and do trip attacks, even if the monster has 4 legs. If you have to spend "character currency" to get something (feats/powers/spells whatever your game has) you are going to pick power combinations that are as widely useful as possible.

It's actually a joke to call what the PCs did there something creative, I mean they solve all their problems by spamming dark fire at shit, using that on the door isn't creative at all. At the very least, I dont' think it's unreasonable to have that solution not be the best one.

Agreeded its not the best solution. The problem though, is not with the players. The problem is the DM. Like you said, to use attack powers is not the best soution. So what's a DM to do? How about

1) Tell the players that battering the door down with the darfire will take some time. Clue players into the fact that the this is not a quite task. Things have probably heard/or might hear the sound of the door being broken. If players continue add a monster as a reinforcement to latter encounters.

2) Instead of hitpoints assign a damage threshold, say that you have to get some fairly high amount of damage in a single hit. Tell them that something like a ballista or a boulder would get a damage bonus to wrecking the door. This is basically railroading by the "someone could but you can't" method.

3) Tell the players that Instead of just doing damage to the door the door would be lit "on darkfire." Setting a door on fire is usually less useful for gaining entry than either opening or destroying said door. Again, things on fire tend to attrack attention.

There are 3 methods, out the near infininte possible explaintions you could give to the players to get them to look for alternate soutions to get past the door besides "attack it with darkfire" but again, considering that destroy the door with our attacks and attack the door with the siege weapon won't have any real effect on how the rest of the story plays out saying no here is just for the sake of railroading.


The thing about these videos is that they show how a very large number of people play D&D. They prove something that my convention experience spelled out to me a LONG time ago. That is for most people and for most games you don't need a system any more complicated than "Warhammer Quest" to run the adventures and stories that they would find satisfying and fun.

[Kaelik]

Souran, WTF is your problem?

1) The rules for breaking doors in 4e are objectively worse than 3e, because in 3e, they have actual rules for it, in 4e, doors don't have HP unless the module says they do, so the DM literally has to make up shit on the spot, and one thing he might make up is the literal interpretation of the targeting rules. It is objectively fucking worse, and I have no idea why you are defending it, especially because:

2) Why the fuck are you turning this into an edition war? No one else was arguing that it's all 4es fault for having shitty rules, we were all talking about how Chris Perkins is a dumbass, and then you started trying to actively defend the terrible 4e rules that no one else was even criticizing.

And I've got no fucking clue why you particularly choose to argue that 4e is the greatest with RC, since he's almost as big a 4e apologist as you. He does at least confine himself to when people actually attack it first though.

[RandomCasualty2]

Except, if your schtick doesn't work then you have nothing to do. The idea that some builds should be totally ineffective in certain fights is a BAD one. Also, this idea that somehow 4e schticks always work and that 3e characters were not EVEN WORSE in this regard is silly.

I know. This is why 4E basically sucks. Every character is just a spammer of one tactic, and if for whatever reason that tactic doesn't work, they're literally useless. If a laser cleric encounters something with near immunity to radiant, he's at a huge disadvantage.

For all the bullshitting about "tactical play" they make, this pretty much shows you how few real choices there are in 4E. The roles basically make the game really boring to play, since everyone does the same thing every battle.

A 3e Trip star character is going to try and do trip attacks, even if the monster has 4 legs. If you have to spend "character currency" to get something (feats/powers/spells whatever your game has) you are going to pick power combinations that are as widely useful as possible.

Yeah, and I didn't like it in 3E either. This is why I thought they did 3E fighters horribly wrong.

The problem with 4E is that all the classes play this way.

[A Man In Black]

I know. This is why 4E basically sucks. Every character is just a spammer of one tactic, and if for whatever reason that tactic doesn't work, they're literally useless. If a laser cleric encounters something with near immunity to radiant, he's at a huge disadvantage.

No he's not, he just takes the ignore-radiant-immunity feat.

Which makes the game even less exciting.

[shadzar]

Chris Perkins explanation for why Darkfire didn't work was bad "Darkfire only targets a creature" however a better reason would be that Darkfire isn't actually fire and does no damage, it's like Faerie Fire from previous editions.

OR as has been pointed out by several on the ENWorld thread that ANY power that targets a creature MAY target an object instead. Chris didn't know the power, had to look at the card, and then stuck with strict keywording when trying to teach new players. Now I don't know how new these people are to D&D, if they are jsut new to 4th or what.

The guy was trying to use his powers and was denied do to unreasonable abstraction in the rules.

There was no explanation given at all outside of mechanics as to why the character would know not to use it or to contrast the rule that can replace "creature" with "object".

There was nothing but telling someone No you cannot do that.

That is the first sign of a shitty DM. Dead Ale Wives got one thing right. The player was not forbidden form TRYING to shot a magic missle into the darkness. It is the player's resources to use a they see fit be they spell, components, ammo, powers etc. Let them try and fail a time or two and they will learn as they go.

It seemed that Chris wanted people to use the mini Arcane Balistae to open the door, rather than any other means. Yet failed to give any reason for it other than the game mechanics.

Mechanics are learned through use, not some silly ass flavor text form a Magic card slapped onto the spells each class has with their corresponding mechanics.

Chris showed poor leadership as a DM, and poor instruction powers to new players.

As someone also mentioned "over there" Darkfyre is just Faerie fire renamed. Fire should be removed if you don't want someone to think along the lines of it gets hot and burns shit especially in a game with such centralized keywording. If you want fire to be a keyword, then allow its use only for this with that property. Don't just haphazardly name things with "fire" is it if a keyword, as then it implies that it has the properties granted by the keyword "fire".

I see someone wanting to use fire to melt ice, and the DM playing rules lawyer rather than rules arbiter. Of course the creative something of WotC personnel lacked the creativity to come up with a good reason or to admit that the game itself may have fucked up naming shit in a manner that may be confusing in use.

I recall they did rename a few things prior to printing 4th edition didn't they? So why not go through and improve all naming conventions to prevent this, and not get stuck on the poor Magic card flavor text on the powers

I liked some of the ideas to explain it "over there". By saying the name was wrong and the power had no real fire but was an illuminary for the target would have gone a long way after someone choose their powers, then tries to use them.

There in itself is another fuck up like was present in the first video podcast with Dave Noonan as DM. Chris and Dave neither knew the powers and had to look them up. While the mass amount of powers in the PHB alone are a lot to memorize, you should explain to your players when the character is created what they do in order to help them make the character they want instead of letting them piss in the dark with the Character Builder, thinking it will do the DMs job for him.

CB is a good tool, but cannot replace the function of a DM to explain what these things may mean during the game. Each DM may rule differently as no one is bound by the letter of the rules which are not concrete in the first place.

Chris should have already explained the powers to the playes and discuss each one with them to enlighten them of the potential uses they would have during play.

This is something that seems to be lost also since 3rd came out. Someone correct me if 3rd really had the ability to research and make your own spells, and wa used in play...

2nd back allowed wizards to research their own spells. Now say a character failed to get fireball because they failed a roll to learn it, and instead wanted to make their own version, or it that they could do in some crippled or different manner. Well you just wouldn't have the spell written down as fireball.

Say you are not playing in Greyhawk so it is not Bigby's Grasping Hand, but just Grasping Hand.

As long as you are going with the powers and using cards for them rename the shit to something that works for you. They offer blank cards for that reason to make you own spells, so don't be afraid to rename them when WotC fucks up, or you have a need for a variant.

It isn't like you need the name of the power since you are using a card to show it exists and has been used unlike previous editions when people did not have the decks for use with the entire spell/psionic power on them.

Fix the damn names WotC, Chris learn to teach new players, Chris learn how not to be a rules lawyer.

So the simple spur of the moment fix Chris could have applied is like you said, IF people had played before or knew mythologically what faerie fire is, otherwise explain the powers before the game starts.

I was so sick i did not watch the first 4 parts to see if he ever did, but he must have failed explaining them and thinking CB or whatever was going to do the job correctly. That is why there is a DM to explain things beyond the books and software.

[RandomCasualty2]

No he's not, he just takes the ignore-radiant-immunity feat.

Which makes the game even less exciting.

They made a feat for that?!

Yeah, 4E is getting worse and worse.

[A Man In Black]

They made a feat for that?!

Yeah, 4E is getting worse and worse.

Maybe? No idea. But they make class features, magic items, feats, and suchlike that reduce resistances or turn immunity into a large pile of resistances or just plain ignore resistance/immunity all the time.

[sake]

They made a feat for that?!

Yeah, 4E is getting worse and worse.

Maybe? No idea. But they make class features, magic items, feats, and suchlike that reduce resistances or turn immunity into a large pile of resistances or just plain ignore resistance/immunity all the time.

I don't remember the exact name of it but yeah, one of the generic divine feats they added in Divine Power allows you to ignore radiant resistance.

At this point, between Morning Lord, Student of Calwhatchamacallitspacegod, Radiant weapons that have built in Iron Armbands of Power,Symbols of Boosting Radiant Vulnerability, and a billion other divine feats, Radiant has far surpassed Cold as the cheese damage type of choice.

[RandomCasualty2]

I wonder if they'll go right to 5E instead of doing 4.5

[Username17]

I wonder if they'll go right to 5E instead of doing 4.5

They are already committed to doing some Red Box style 4e rules repackaging, which is pretty similar in concept to a 4.5.

-Username17

[ggroy]

[ggroy]

[RobbyPants]

I wonder if they'll go right to 5E instead of doing 4.5

They are already committed to doing some Red Box style 4e rules repackaging, which is pretty similar in concept to a 4.5.

-Username17

Red Box? As in the different OD&D sets?

[ggroy]

[Username17]

I wonder if they'll go right to 5E instead of doing 4.5

They are already committed to doing some Red Box style 4e rules repackaging, which is pretty similar in concept to a 4.5.

-Username17

Red Box? As in the different OD&D sets?

Yes.

Game components:

[*]32-page book for players, with rules for character creation and a solo adventure
[*]64-page book for Dungeon Masters, with the rules of the game, advice on how to run the game, and adventure content
[*]2 sheets of die-cut tokens for characters and monsters
[*]Cardstock character sheets and power cards
[*]Double-sided dungeon map
[*]6 polyhedral dice

Thereafter they will publish a "Monster Vault" and a "Dungeon Master's Kit" for the Player's Essentials line. Also, they will publish not one, but at least two "Player's Essentials" books for the D&D Essentials line. The first book will contain bonus builds for:

[*] the cleric, the fighter, the ranger, the rogue, and the wizard.
[*] dwarves, eladrin, elves, halflings, and humans.

The other will contain:

[*]the cleric, the druid, the paladin, the ranger, and the warlock.
[*]dragonborn, drow, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings

Basically it's "Ultimate 4e D&D". Which should surprise no one because they were talking about how they wanted to do "Ultimate Darksun" just a couple of months ago.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

My god I'm glad I jumped ship several years ago.

[ggroy]