New 4E Battle Tactic: Murder Pinball

Absentminded_Wizard · Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:02 pm

Since the whole 4e shebang is all about exception-based design, I'd have to say that the Wall of Fire doesn't create any standard terrain type. After all, one of the points of EBD is that things don't have to always conform to some general category. If the designers wanted Wall of Fire to create a specific kind of terrain from the rules on DMG 60-62, they would have called it hindering terrain or obscured terrain. Instead, Wall of Fire creates its own unique kind of terrain with the features listed in the power description (damage for being adjacent to or inside the wall, 3 extra squares of movement to enter, blocks line of sight). Since it's not hindering terrain, the target doesn't get a save.

Now, it's not particularly consistent and it doesn't make sense, but such are the wonders of Exception-Based Design.

Amra · Post by **Amra** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:40 pm

Yup, that's pretty much what I said. By RAW, it ain't hindering terrain. By the principles of EBD, it's either "special terrain" or "not a terrain type at all", just a number of squares that have special effects.

If I found myself in the position of running a game where such a scenario occurred, I'd be inclined to get out my 100% handwavium aerosol, spray away the rules as written and allow the save. Trouble is, "It doesn't say that it does and therefore doesn't" is the only fair and consistent way to treat it, because "It doesn't say that it doesn't and therefore does" is straight into Cops and Robbers territory.

Meh, I'm going all cross-eyed considering this shit. How long before someone comes out and says "Yeah, but it's all OK because the DMG tells you to rule these things however you think is sensible," do you suppose?

Don't get me wrong, Rule 0 is important; it's just not an excuse for getting it so confused in the first place.

What about the link to the ENWorld thread you mentioned?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:42 pm

Yeah, Rule 0 is good but the better the game, the less you need it. Not that I'd be caught running a 4E game ever, but if I was, I'd probably say "Well, this works better for you and means there's damage we even care about. Besides, let's make fun of EBD."

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:08 am

Another thing is that it does take some positioning to pull this off. Though it's probably not the philosophy of the 4e design team, I have no problem with using tactical positioning to get a real, significant advantage. I mean, what's worse than a tactical skirmish game where no strategy you use can ever significantly change your side's effectiveness.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:28 am

Also, I think there's the issue of there being different types of forced movement (though not, as far as I can be bothered to check, an actual mechanical difference).

We have mind control, where you deal psychic damage and they wander across the lake of lava and stab their friend in the head. Then, because you specialise in psychic damage and took the feat, they take a small penalty to hit on their next turn. Whatever.

This kind easily allows them to zig-zag through a wall of fire. It's also the only one that could be argued to allow a save (depending on whether you feel "I hit your Will defence, I have control over your actions. I am inside your brain, MIND SLAVE!" is complete enough that they can't get an extra heroic burst of willpower to shrug the effects off).

We also have "I telekinetically grab you and throw you around the place." This might allow a zig-zag, depending on how clumsy the telekinesis is. I can't see any reason to offer a save, though. They're already grabbed and held. They failed to break free already.

Then there's "I hit you with my sword/golf club and you go flying". This should not allow a save, because that'd imply that the existence of danger allows you to defy physics but the lack of danger does not - I don't mind people being able to break the rules of the Universe (see: we already have magic there), but it's dumb to have "there is a source of danger and I don't want to catch fire" be what slows you down and brings you to a sudden halt.

That one, however, probably shouldn't allow a zig-zag. Maybe a curve if you're confident in your golfing skills. Even a boomerang arc is pushing it.

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:34 pm

Koumei wrote:"I hit you with my sword/golf club and you go flying".

I'm suddenly imagining a bigass orc teeing off with some kobold heads on a pike.

"Fore!"
"I say, Reginald. That beholder never saw it coming!"
*Takes a sip of tea*
"Now then, shall we rage?"
"Indeed, old chap."
"GRRRRRRRRRRRAFAAAAAWHAHAAA!!!!"

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:38 am

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread ... 164&page=2

Thread

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:08 am

Ravengm wrote:
Koumei wrote:"I hit you with my sword/golf club and you go flying".
I'm suddenly imagining a bigass orc teeing off with some kobold heads on a pike.

"Fore!"
"I say, Reginald. That beholder never saw it coming!"
*Takes a sip of tea*
"Now then, shall we rage?"
"Indeed, old chap."
"GRRRRRRRRRRRAFAAAAAWHAHAAA!!!!"

Wasn't this a joke in LotR? The burly hobbit of antiquity who fought some battle, beheaded the goblin chief and simultaneously invented the game of golf?

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:07 am

Yep. Actually, I believe the legendary hobbit was one of Bilbo's ancestors.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:18 am

And I now have a new character idea for the future. An orcish upper-class British golfer. Pip pip.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:51 pm

So....

Hobgoblins are Feudal Wapanese.

No, not Japanese. Remember, they're a mockery of Feudal Japan, so Wapanese holds.

Orcs are British. Oooooh, then all of the brutish orcs are the equivalent of lower-class Londoners.....Which might make Frank's rage about how GW Orcs speak suddenly be slightly less. The Orc king and Queen seriously ride around in chariots and greet the people by holding their arms up and turning their hands at the wrist.

Hmm, this gives me a whole new thread idea.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:04 am

I think we discussed it before, and someone accused us of racism for comparing monsters to ethnicities. We countered with "Nah, we're recognising what aspects of the monsters were based on ethnicities and are just running with it completely."

The 13 Wise Buttlords · Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:28 am

Yeah, fucking seriously, how could anyone not look at Lord of the Rings and not conclude that the races in that game weren't based on:

A) Smug Aryan bastards that are just Better Than You
B) Cave Jews
C) Happy Take-It-Up-The-Ass slaves

This book was dated by the time the Atomic Age rolled around. THINK, you shitmongrels!

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:46 am

Cave. Jews.
Well.

Anyway, I've always seen the Hobbit connection of what Irish are generally viewed as; stout, obnoxious, racist little shits that spent their non-worktime being suspicious, drinking, partying, complaining, drinking, smoking, drinking, and drinking some more.
They are insular, inbred, and simple, simple, simple folk.

Some say "endearing" while others say "comic relief", but seeing how I appear to have taller versions of hobbits in my own extended family (albeit bipolar, schizophrenic, what have you), whenever someone plays a 'halfling' in any RPG or begins to extoll the virtue of such a wonderful Tolkein creation, I cringe inside.

Absentminded_Wizard · Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:15 am

I was always surprised that nobody ever compared the superior Numenoreans to the Aryan "master race." I mean, you don't even have to get into the different "species races" to read race into Tolkien. The fact that there are some races of Men that are taller, healthier, and longer-lived smacks so much of eugenics that it's ridiculous. And this is coming from somebody who thoroughly enjoyed both the books and the movies.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:42 am

I think everyone gets distracted by the bold-face statements that the Races of Men that come from the East and South are superstitious, stupid, fearful and lesser in every way imaginable. The racism gets pretty overt, in that lovely patronizing early 20th century British way.

@sig- not Irish. Just plain old British commons. Lots of old British sitcoms tap into the same vein, tune into some of the PBS channels on saturday night and watch shit like Are You Being Served, Fawlty Towers, and especially Keeping Up Appearances [Mrs 'Bucket' really is the Sackville-Baggins bitch]. They tend to be funny because the people are actively horrible, but its also fairly cringe inducing at the same time.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:15 am

Voss wrote:I think everyone gets distracted by the bold-face statements that the Races of Men that come from the East and South are superstitious, stupid, fearful and lesser in every way imaginable. The racism gets pretty overt, in that lovely patronizing early 20th century British way.

Quote, please.