Chapter 4 / Interlude 1: Discussion

[Jeff]

Cool, so.....Darren and Mike, given all this, give us an update of your actions. Torhak goes before Kal anyway, so Darren, you can always say what your actions would be depending on which way Torhak goes.

[Darren]

It wouldn't change Kal's actions. The truth is, Kal's not really so altruistic as all that. He would go after Alvek no matter what because in Kal's mind, this is a battle between the powerful leaders, magic on magic, and all that good stuff.

Kal's kind of full of himself.

[Jeff]

It's fine with me.

Just waiting on Torhak's action.

[Darren]

Okay, after posting and modifying and posting again, I have a question before I modify again.

What's the deal with the "charge" action? Does that increase your movement at the expense of being able to use a power? If that's the case, could Kal do the following this round?

Charge and attack Alvek with a standard attack
Use an action point to make a second attack using Reaping Strike

If he can do that, then that's what I think I want to do.

[Jeff]

If you charge, which is a move action, you have to go at least 2 squares. Then when you reach the square adjacent to your enemy, you get a +1 on your attack roll, which can only be basic attack (not a power of any kind).

And yes, this is the same encounter, so no Shield.

[Darren]

Right. So charging doesn't get you any extra movement, and since Kal's movement is 6 squares, in order to actually reach Alvek and attack this turn, Kal will have to use an action point to move twice. Correct?

[Jeff]

Correctamundo. An action point would be required to reach him and attack, if you're determined to make a melee attack.

[Darren]

I guess this is a lesson to me to read the rules more closely. One of the reasons I was so quick to have Kal close with Alvek was because I figured that casting while someone is adjacent to you, like in 3.5, would provoke an attack of opportunity. Live and learn....

[Jeff]

Not sure I follow you, Darren. If you do cast a ranged spell or make a ranged attack when you're adjacent to an enemy, it does provoke an attack of opportunity. (Like in 3.5, as you say.)

That's why Alvek had to shift 1 square away from Kal first in order to cast a spell. (Shifting 1 square doesn't provoke, but if he moved, say, 2 squares, it would.) On Kal's turn, Kal then closed the distance again and attacked. So while Alvek ends up adjacent to Kal by the end of the round, during his turn he did put some space between them.

[Darren]

Right, but if you can just shift and then cast every turn, there's no real disadvantage to trying to cast during combat, unless your opponent has you backed into a corner. I don't recall there being rules to that effect in 3.5. Maybe there were. I never really knew any of the rules all that well, anyway.

[Ken]

This did work the same way in v3.5. You could always take a 5-foot step back (or 4e's "shift") without incurring an Opportunity Attack. So -- and this is the key part -- if you have the room, you can take a step back and cast a spell or fire a ranged weapon.

Example: In Belarin's situation, he's backed up against a wall against a big opponent who's taking up 10 feet square. So he couldn't step back to use a ranged attack without provoking an Opportunity Attack from Gruus. And because of Gruus' size and position, stepping one square to the side wouldn't have made a difference.

Alvek, on the other hand, had room to step back on the stairwell, so he could shift and cast.

Getting back against a wall absolutely sucks for spellcasters. ;-)

[Darren]

OOC, just wanted to mention again that we left Alvek's sister unconscious and unbound on the ground a few rooms back, so...y'know, we may end up having to fight her again.

[Darren]

Thanks for the reminder about the letter, Ken. One of the problems with the PBP method of playing, I suppose, is that with the speed that the game moves, I often end up forgetting important details by the time they become relevant.

Didn't we use to have a summary thread? Or, alternatively, can we create a thread where any of us can put a note about things that we think are important that we may need later, but which can be communal knowledge?

[Jeff]

One of the problems with the PBP method of playing, I suppose, is that with the speed that the game moves, I often end up forgetting important details by the time they become relevant.

Conversely, what the PBP method has over the tabletop method is being able to just fine the relevant information with a few clicks. In tabletop play, if you forgot, you forgot, and you just have to ask someone who took notes. Here it's ALL here and in all the detail you want. Don't get lazy, Darren! Trust me, I have to click back to recall stuff, too, sometimes, and it doesn't take as long as you think.

Didn't we use to have a summary thread?

Yup, but I've seen very little interest in players clicking back to find information (Ken being a notable exception suddenly!), so I've had little interest in maintaining it.

Or, alternatively, can we create a thread where any of us can put a note about things that we think are important that we may need later, but which can be communal knowledge?

I like this a LOT better. But if only one person does it, it'll fall apart. But if you really mean it, Darren, spearhead this idea! Don't go "Can't someone else do it?" ;D

[Marcy]

I've been clicking back, too! To find out exactly who the fey lady wanted, etc. Had to click through 30+ pages to find it, too, so a summary thread would be nice.

[Jeff]

Well I'm all for a summary page to help everyone out. But it really shouldn't be me writing it. (I have enough to keep track of as it is!) Way back when I started it, I suggested that it be written from a player perspective, anyway, and asked if anyone was interested in taking that up to the benefit from all...

I believe you, Marcy!

[Darren]

I didn't mean you should maintain it, Jeff. I meant it would be a place that we all contribute to. If something happens that "you" (meaning any one of us) think is important that you want to take a note of, you just write it in that thread. Think of it as a communal piece of notebook paper.

So, I don't mean "Can't someone else do it?" I mean, how do I start a new thread?

[Darren]

thanks to Marcy's notes, we know we are not done at Shadowcrest. We need to find this Eftith and we are not yet sure who the "scourge of Halvern Glen" is. Gruus, maybe? The sister? Also, we haven't found the "Old Man" who is apprently raising the dead. I also wonder about leaving the power of the bound spirits at Malov's disposal, but I'll discuss that more in character.

[Marcy]

I think Eftith may be the woman we left in the cell, whose legs have been fused, but I don't know for sure. We'd have to go back and ask her.

[Jeff]

Just to be clear, I think we should keep this thread for notes, but discussion that arises as a result of someone's notes should probably occur in the Q&A thread for a particular chapter. That'll help keep things clean so we can easily find the information.

Right. My plan was to actually eventually delete any posts I make in the DE Notes thread, once the information has been received or ammended or whatever.

[Jeff]

He turns to Torhak and points at Alvek. "Bring him," he says, then turns to follow Charis and Goran.

Darren, do bear in mind that whenever Kal tells another character to do something, rather than do it himself, it's not going to happen until that player posts a concurrence. Just sayin'.

[Darren]

Of course. Everyone has free will.

Guys, if I'm doing that thing again that everyone hates, please tell me. I can't tell if Torhak is angry in character or if it's Mike. I wasn't trying to order Torhak around. Kal asked Torhak to bring Alvek because Torhak is the big guy who would be dragging people around. He was free to disagree and say he was doing/wanted to do something else.

[Ken]

Darren, Kal has a, shall we say, "imperious" way about him. His orders often come across a man speaking to his lessers, as opposed to a man who is leading a group of peers. Granted, some nuances of dialogue can get lost in the black-and-white of the page, but there is a more Jean-Luc Picardy way of issuing orders without talking down to people.

Now if you're intending for Kal to have this imperious attitude, that's fine -- it's a valid character trait. But neither he (nor you) should be surprised then if some of the other characters tell Kal they resent it. If that's not your intention, then there are ways to avoid it. An order of "Bring him" could become "Torhak, let's bring him with us." It's issued in an authoritative way, but it helps to recognize that your ally is a participant, not a servant.

[Jeff]

Incidentally, my comment above was not about Kal's alleged bosiness. Just one of logistics. In other words, one character requesting an action from another character won't just be assumed to occur. I'll have to wait and see if the other character intends to follow through before I post again, in that case. So it could potentially stall the moment for a day or so.

That's all. The only reason I brought it up.

[Marcy]

Mar 15, 2009 21:10:52 GMT -4 Darren said:

Guys, if I'm doing that thing again that everyone hates, please tell me.

IDK. I can't imagine us all sitting around a gaming table saying, "Please, Torhak, be a dear and bring the prisoner along, would you?" But, then, I've always preferred Kirk to Picard, myself.

[Ken]

I knew there was going to be a Kirk comment. No, I'm not advocating the classic Picard wuss move of "A crisis! Everyone, to my Ready Room so we can discuss it!" I'm simply saying that there's a way to issue orders that isn't so terse. And "please" shouldn't factor into it. A command is a command, after all. But if Kal wanted to avoid misunderstandings, he could say something like, "Torhak, bring him. Bounce him into sharp objects along the way." Not only is it less harsh, but it acknowledges the other PC and gives more room for the PC (and the player) to respond.

[mike]

Now if you're intending for Kal to have this imperious attitude, that's fine -- it's a valid character trait. But neither he (nor you) should be surprised then if some of the other characters tell Kal they resent it. If that's not your intention, then there are ways to avoid it. An order of "Bring him" could become "Torhak, let's bring him with us." It's issued in an authoritative way, but it helps to recognize that your ally is a participant, not a servant.

Ken summed it up far better than I could.

I've tried explaining this before, but - again - Torhak is a dwarven barbarian who hates authority and hates magic. He doesn't like to be ordered around by *anyone* to begin with. When Kal does it with the aforementioned imperious attitude, he's apt to like it even less.

Again, you're free to play Kal however you want, Darren. Just don't be surprised when some characters don't react well to Kal's actions.

IDK. I can't imagine us all sitting around a gaming table saying, "Please, Torhak, be a dear and bring the prisoner along, would you?" But, then, I've always preferred Kirk to Picard, myself.

I actually think that'd be really funny if we did try that at a gaming table someday. ;D

More seriously, I wouldn't expect that sort of extreme at all. But there's a happy medium between that and the "Bring Him."/point, which comes across as condescending.

(Do *I* care? Not really. Is *Torhak* going to let that slide? No way in Khyber.)

[Jeff]

Well, it's all still a lot better than an example of non-specific leadership. As much as I love the movie Labyrinth, I always lose a little respect for Jareth, the Goblin-King, when he learns that Sarah and her companions have breached the walls of the Goblin City and he just shouts angrily, "Do something!" to no one in particular.

At least Kal doesn't do that.

[Darren]

Thanks, Mike. That was sort of my point. It's okay with *me* if Torhak is annoyed by Kal, because in character that all makes sense. It's not okay with me if *you* are annoyed at me because of the way I'm playing Kal. That's what I want to avoid. I want everyone to be enjoying themselves and I certainly don't want anyone else leaving the game because they feel like they're not getting any input into what they do. I think the dynamic that's being created between Kal and Torhak can be interesting, if we play it correctly and understand that it's not personal. As long as we're clear on that, then I think we're all good.

And Ken, your points are well taken, and I like the fact that you are making those points in character, because it allows for natural growth of characters instead of sudden changes caused by a need to change our style of play.

Okay, enough of this, then. Let's carry on! ;D

[Darren]

Jeff, a question about communication with Matheu. I realize he speaks telepathically to us, but can we, in fact, speak to him telepathically, or do we need to speak out loud to talk to him? It's never really been confirmed, and I think people have been assuming that we can, but I was never really sure.