[4e] Those lying liars.

[hogarth]

Yeah, from what I saw the rules comp was just a reprint of the exact same shit in the DMG/PHB, only in a different order. I didn't even really see too many rules from other books.

The point is that they reworded rules from the DMG/PHB, and 9 times out of 10 rewording a rule (or 'clarifying' a rule) changes it somehow.

(Pathfinder RPG is bad at doing this -- taking a 3.5 rule, rewording it to make it even less clear and then saying: "Dur, I don't see what the problem is.")

[A Man In Black]

Okay, and you see how my monster strategy completely owns your player strategies face?

Monsters are door stacked, Players are door stacked.

Monsters are fine waiting. Players are not.

Player moves forward gets single ranged attack. Monsters get 3 attacks. Player retreats and gets one attack. Monsters retreat and wait for repeat.

Why are the players not fine waiting? The players do get spells to break this stalemate, while the monsters almost never do.

Also, it's:
• Decoy moves forward, gets one ranged attack.
• Two monsters, one from the left and one from the right, rush him and get a total of two attacks.
• Decoy player makes an attack, backs out through the door.
• Door guard attacks with a reach weapon, backs off.
• Another player moves into the door, attacks with a reach weapon.
• Monster turn, they can stand in the door and get wasted or run away for another bad trade.

That's a 4 - 2 trade in favor of team PC. The monsters can't get three attacks without leaving someone in LOS of the door, unless the wall is at least six squares wide and that's really rare.

On top of this, it's a strategy that only works with at least two squares of unobstructed wall on the side of the door, and that's not too terribly common between short walls, small rooms, and furniture obstacles.

[Username17]

Yeah, from what I saw the rules comp was just a reprint of the exact same shit in the DMG/PHB, only in a different order. I didn't even really see too many rules from other books.

The point is that they reworded rules from the DMG/PHB, and 9 times out of 10 rewording a rule (or 'clarifying' a rule) changes it somehow.

(Pathfinder RPG is bad at doing this -- taking a 3.5 rule, rewording it to make it even less clear and then saying: "Dur, I don't see what the problem is.")

Absotively. Further, a number of rules have contradictory explanations in different books (the definitions of spell-like abilities and energy resistance, for example), and the Rules Compendium does not always even take the version from the official "primary source."

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Why are the players not fine waiting? The players do get spells to break this stalemate, while the monsters almost never do.

Because they have to accomplish X, and the Monsters are content to wait.

Also, it's:
• Decoy moves forward, gets one ranged attack.
• Two monsters, one from the left and one from the right, rush him and get a total of two attacks.
• Decoy player makes an attack, backs out through the door.
• Door guard attacks with a reach weapon, backs off.
• Another player moves into the door, attacks with a reach weapon.
• Monster turn, they can stand in the door and get wasted or run away for another bad trade.

There are like 4 parts in there that contradict the rules you actually presented:

1: If you have a door guard standing close enough to attack a monster on the other room, then you actually have no way for the decoy to move into the room.
2: Monsters get three attacks, not two.
So in fact, it's actually 3 to 3, assuming players actually suffer no disadvantage whatsoever from using ranged attacks in melee and that ranged attacks are equal to melee attacks in general damage.

[Koumei]

You can move through squares occupied by your own friends in Hero Quest.

[shadzar]

You can move through squares occupied by your own friends in Hero Quest.

where does it say this so i can dig out my book?

[A Man In Black]

There are like 4 parts in there that contradict the rules you actually presented:

1: If you have a door guard standing close enough to attack a monster on the other room, then you actually have no way for the decoy to move into the room.
2: Monsters get three attacks, not two.
So in fact, it's actually 3 to 3, assuming players actually suffer no disadvantage whatsoever from using ranged attacks in melee and that ranged attacks are equal to melee attacks in general damage.

Ranged attacks are as good as longsword attacks, IIRC, and you can move through your allies. So the monsters can get their third attack, but then they're setting themselves up to get hit three times next turn.

Oh god, I can't imagine what the game would be like if you couldn't move through allies. All the hallways are one square wide.

[shadzar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wGvgRScT6w

Let's see what Chris has to say about the darkfire incedent...

listening to it now...

Nothing. Wasn't the darkfire in #4 or was it #5?

[ggroy]

[ubernoob]

There are like 4 parts in there that contradict the rules you actually presented:

1: If you have a door guard standing close enough to attack a monster on the other room, then you actually have no way for the decoy to move into the room.
2: Monsters get three attacks, not two.
So in fact, it's actually 3 to 3, assuming players actually suffer no disadvantage whatsoever from using ranged attacks in melee and that ranged attacks are equal to melee attacks in general damage.

Ranged attacks are as good as longsword attacks, IIRC, and you can move through your allies. So the monsters can get their third attack, but then they're setting themselves up to get hit three times next turn.

Oh god, I can't imagine what the game would be like if you couldn't move through allies. All the hallways are one square wide.

When I played the game we thought you couldn't move through allies. We just planned our marching order a little more carefully, moved at the slowest person's pace, and simply ganked everything in doorways so we wouldn't need to retreat.

[shadzar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wGvgRScT6w

Let's see what Chris has to say about the darkfire incedent...

listening to it now...

Nothing. Wasn't the darkfire in #4 or was it #5?

Wonder if he still cares anymore at this point.

Maybe he's the next one on the chopping block for mid-year layoffs, and largely doesn't give a damn anymore. (ie. A "lame duck").

Isn't he like the DDi editor person or something, or have I got the wrong Chris?

[ggroy]

[ggroy]

[shadzar]

Wonder if he still cares anymore at this point.

Maybe he's the next one on the chopping block for mid-year layoffs, and largely doesn't give a damn anymore. (ie. A "lame duck").

Isn't he like the DDi editor person or something, or have I got the wrong Chris?

According to his WotC pages, Chris Perkins is the D&D "creative manager".

http://community.wizards.com/christopher_perkins

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=st ... hristopher

No idea what exactly his job functions and duties are.

Kind of funny when the "creative" manager, fails at creativity. So odds are his job is already on the chopping block since he surely is incompetent for his position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2Mlf4ncPwg

If there is any questions as to whether players can try something or can't, I generally err on the side of "can".

This is what he says BEFORE (1:20) someone tries to use darkfire.....

After, he makes this statement:

The darkfire power targets only creatures not objects.

So the "creative" manager neglects to look at the rules in his rules lawyering to note the DM can alter ANY power that targets only creatures and allow it to target objects, and in this neglect he contradicts his previous "err on the side of yes to things players want to try".

I would have put his ass out the door right after finishing the commentaries. Hand him his hat and have someone cleaning out his desk while he does the voice over, and just meat him at the door with his shit and let him be on his way to wherever they consider his lack of creativity to be "creative".

Still doesn't matter what the power does or would have done, but he completely fucked up for no reason other than he must be a fuck up.

If he was going to rules lawyer as per going by what the card says, he should have continue to follow the rules, and note that he could alter the power to target objects, and then with his own personal belief as a DM, he should have allowed the power to be USED, and then go form there to figure out what effect, if any, it would have had.

Too many Chris' at WotC, Perkins, Youngs, Simms....but I got em straight now for DDi and this one.

[RandomCasualty2]

According to his WotC pages, Chris Perkins is the D&D "creative manager".

No idea what exactly his job functions and duties are.

Keeping the level of creativity down to manageable levels?

[Username17]

According to his WotC pages, Chris Perkins is the D&D "creative manager".

No idea what exactly his job functions and duties are.

Keeping the level of creativity down to manageable levels?

Someone has to. If you give Bruce Cordell free run of the place, he'll end up making your Psionics work on a weird point system where people have to keep track of fractional charges and everything will have bizarre key words that are "partially" transparent with the rest of the game system.

-Username17

[Koumei]

According to his WotC pages, Chris Perkins is the D&D "creative manager".

No idea what exactly his job functions and duties are.

Keeping the level of creativity down to manageable levels?

Someone has to. If you give Bruce Cordell free run of the place, he'll end up making your Psionics work on a weird point system where people have to keep track of fractional charges and everything will have bizarre key words that are "partially" transparent with the rest of the game system.

Oh I see what you did there.

[shadzar]

Keeping the level of creativity down to manageable levels?

Someone has to. If you give Bruce Cordell free run of the place, he'll end up making your Psionics work on a weird point system where people have to keep track of fractional charges and everything will have bizarre key words that are "partially" transparent with the rest of the game system.

Oh I see what you did there.

I don't unless Frank is talking about both 4th edition in general, and WotC naming conventions, or MTHAC0 itself and how psionics never really worked with the game it was part of.

[A Man In Black]

Someone has to. If you give Bruce Cordell free run of the place, he'll end up making your Psionics work on a weird point system where people have to keep track of fractional charges and everything will have bizarre key words that are "partially" transparent with the rest of the game system.

Did I mention that 4e psionic powers have the psionic keyword, which is completely separate from the psychic keyword?

[mean_liar]

WUT.

Source? I mean, that's an amazingly stupid thing to do. Really?

[Username17]

WUT.

Source? I mean, that's an amazingly stupid thing to do. Really?

Seriously. Every power has a "power source" tag that does... well... almost nothing. But it's there. Further, powers have an "elemental type" tag, unless they are Martial in which case they usually don't.

So all Psionic powers have the "Psionic" tag on them to mark them as being powers from a Psionic powered class. "Psychic" is an effect class that triggers resistance, vulnerability or immunity in umm... not very many monsters. The Gd Forged Colossus has Resist 30 against Psychic, and um... that's the only one in the Monster Manual. I assume they added a couple in the later Monster Manuals, but I can't be fucked to check.

So a Illusionary attack from the Wizard is "psychic" but not "psionic," a telekinetic attack from the Psion is "psionic" but not "psychic," and an ego whip from the Psion is both "psionic" and "psychic." Make sense now?

-Username17

[Doom]

Whoa, that leads to an interesting idea: resistances to power source types.

Imagine Resist Martial 5, for example...a whole bunch of monsters like that might force the party to think about what to attack with whom when instead of systematically focusing on whatever they feel like, and make multiclassing a bit more fun to have beyond powergaming. Ok, that was stupid, but still it would make power sources relevant in some way other than 'we just use these to disguise the fact that everyone is really a kind of wizard'.

Granted, it totally violates the design paradigm....but damn, that's an idea the likes of which I haven't seen since Wizard's Crown.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Resistance Martial 5 would make many players cry. Of course, the designers don't blink when they make monsters specifically immune to Sleep.

[Meikle641]

I just don't get it. Why make 4e psi work like that? It's just fucking stupid. There is seriously no good reason for there to do this. Not that it stopped him from fucking up transparency earlier with how psychi- er PSIONIC powers are chosen, since it's done differently than any other power for some reason.

Or whatever, it's been a while since I heard it explained.

[RandomCasualty2]

Psychic/Psionic thing is just a weird thing in 4E because Psychic is a damage type and is the 4E version of a [mind-affecting] tag. Psionic is actually a power that has the psionic power source.

As far as other psionic related bullshit... like making all psionic characters get no encounter powers and just use power points to augment At will powers, that's some crazy new gimmick they're trying for god knows what reason.