So a situation came up in our last session and I was hoping to get some input on it.
We have a Monk in our party. The Monk was slowed while he was at a distance from the bad guys. The player wanted to use Crane's Wings (Monk At-Will, level 1).
The movement part of the power reads:
You make an Athletics check to jump with a +5 power bonus. You are considered to have a running start, and the distance of the jump isn't limited by your speed. (emphasis mine).
The Slowed condition reads:
Your speed becomes 2. This speed applies to all your movement modes, but it does not apply to teleportation or to a pull, a push, or a slide. You can't increase your speed above 2, and your speed doesn't increase if it was lower than 2. If you're slowed while moving, stop if you have already moved 2 or more squares.
So, the DM ruled against the player, saying that the slow condition negated the movement aspect of the power, and would at most allow the player to jump the 2 squares (negating the benefit of the power, as the player had rolled really well on his Athletics and could have jumped into the middle of combat.
I (and the other players) thought that the Monk should have been allowed to make the jump (and being one of the other DMs in the group, I usually side with the DM more often than not). I beleive that somewhere in the rules it is supposed to state that specificity overrules generality, but I could not find it at the time, and we wanted to move on.
What do you think about the situation, and could someone point me to where the whole specific vs. general statement is (if it does exist)
Thanks,
Larry
You put the emphasis on the part that works in the monks favor... distance of the jump isn't limited by your speed. I like to add that it doesn't say you have to have a running start but that you are considered to have one for purposes of the jump. The Speed 2 doesn't matter to the monk using Crane's Wings because he makes the Athletics check for his jump and distance of the jump isn't limited by the Monk's speed.
A moot point now but for future references I believe the DM was wrong.
As far as RAW, I think you're right. If the jump is not limited to your Speed, then you could have any Speed and the jump would apply normally. It seems odd, though, that the Monk would have an at-will that is essentially 'ignore being slowed' since a halfway-optimized level 1 Monk could have a +14 (+4 STR, Athletics training and the +5 power bonus) or more bonus to this roll to start with, meaning that even on a 1, she could clear 3 squares - up to 6 squares on a 16 or better!
I've always found that the Slowed condition is one of the least detrimental conditions in the game. The ability to get around it with the appropriate choices isn't really going to harm your game, I don't think.
|
I've always found that the Slowed condition is one of the least detrimental conditions in the game. The ability to get around it with the appropriate choices isn't really going to harm your game, I don't think.
I agree, it really only comes into play if your trying to run away from someone or they're more then 4 squares away. Given the amount of things in the game that can cause the slow effect you'd think it would be more useful.
I've always found that the Slowed condition is one of the least detrimental conditions in the game. The ability to get around it with the appropriate choices isn't really going to harm your game, I don't think.I agree, it really only comes into play if your trying to run away from someone or they're more then 4 squares away. Given the amount of things in the game that can cause the slow effect you'd think it would be more useful.
We have the ability in our group and find it very useful. It essentially takes one monster out of the fight so long as you can stay more then 2 squares away from it.
We have the ability in our group and find it very useful. It essentially takes one monster out of the fight so long as you can stay more then 2 squares away from it.
Couldn't they still move the 2 squares then charge (for another 2)?
|
|
We have the ability in our group and find it very useful. It essentially takes one monster out of the fight so long as you can stay more then 2 squares away from it.
As Blazej just pointed out, you'd need to stay more then 2 squares away.
The Slowed Condition reduces your movement speed to 2 and you can't increase it beyond that. It doesn't limit you from moving more then 2 squares from your starting position.
You take a move actions to move 2 squares, then you take a standard action to charge 2 squares. Something that's slowed can attack anyone within 5 squares from where they start since they can easily move 2, charge 2 and then attack an adjacent square.
This is all assuming that the thing you slow can't just teleport around or has a ranged attack or reach which further increases how far away it can be.
Not to say that it can't be used tactfully in some situations, but in a majority of fights it's very useless.
We have the ability in our group and find it very useful. It essentially takes one monster out of the fight so long as you can stay more then 2 squares away from it.Couldn't they still move the 2 squares then charge (for another 2)?
Hmm...apparently this idea has not dawned on our DM yet.
|
|
Actually, the most common use of slow in the games I've played in and run is to lock down Artillery monsters to keep them from getting the space they need to avoid be strikered to death.
It's not as powerful as immobilization, but can often be applied at range easily (immobilize can readily be applied by a character with a decent shot at successful grabs - often preferrable for a defender to do against some of the more wiggly monsters like kobolds or gobbos).
Personally I applaud the DM who's willing to put common sense over the rules.
Player: "But the rules right here say it doesn't affect my move speed."
DM: "The dagger sticking in your calf says otherwise."
One of the big strengths of 4th edition is that it really opens the doors for PCs to do some amazing things. As a DM, I've said 'yes' to stuff I wouldn't have allowed in 3.5 simply because the rules are open enough to allow for some off-the-wall behavior.
What doesn't get a lot of press, though, is that the reverse needs to also be true. Just because the rules allow it doesn't mean a DM should toss aside common sense.
I have an open narrative-challenge to my players. If they can describe to me how something works when it otherwise shouldn't, I let if go. When a warlord tries to revive an unconscious teammate with a motivational speech I say no...until the players describe narratively how the words seem to cut through his fogged mind and draw him back to reality.
Personally I applaud the DM who's willing to put common sense over the rules.
Player: "But the rules right here say it doesn't affect my move speed."
DM: "The dagger sticking in your calf says otherwise."
One of the big strengths of 4th edition is that it really opens the doors for PCs to do some amazing things. As a DM, I've said 'yes' to stuff I wouldn't have allowed in 3.5 simply because the rules are open enough to allow for some off-the-wall behavior.
What doesn't get a lot of press, though, is that the reverse needs to also be true. Just because the rules allow it doesn't mean a DM should toss aside common sense.
I have an open narrative-challenge to my players. If they can describe to me how something works when it otherwise shouldn't, I let if go. When a warlord tries to revive an unconscious teammate with a motivational speech I say no...until the players describe narratively how the words seem to cut through his fogged mind and draw him back to reality.
Even for an old timer its hard for me to remember how it used to be in times of yore, though this sound a lot like those days. Still it is so hard to give up the rules...they protect us like a security blanket. There is something to be said for avoiding long drawn out arguments as well of course.
I hope you player's have come up with a very convincing reason why various laws of physics and biology are contraveined repeatedly during more or less any power usage. (Warlord's Healing, Wizards doing more or less anything, etc,etc) Myself I hate a game of appease the semi benivolent GAME opps I mean REALITY MASTER.
I'm with you here.
I dislike the idea that it's somehow the player's responsibility to justify them being allowed to do something to the DM that is already explicitly allowed in the rules. If the DM wants to ban something outright because he doesn't feel it has a place in his game, he's welcome to. But once he starts telling his players that they can do it only if they can come up with a way to explain it descriptively, you're venturing into dangerous territory. If I were in a game like that, I'd feel like the DM was arbitrarily changing the rules on me and forcing me to justify the rules as presented in the book.
The problem you're having here, Fletch, is that what you consider and label "common sense" isn't actually anything like common sense - you're essentially saying "It's common sense that a psionic monk with a dagger buried in his calf couldn't possibly pull of the mystical Crane's Wings technique!" It's an interpretation of a fictional game situation that doesn't exist outside your own mind. The reason we have rules is to avoid this sort of arbitrary confusion, where the player is convinced one thing is true and the DM is convinced of another.
First, in the example given you took an attack that slowed to mean "a dagger is buried in your calf." This doesn't necessarily follow in the first place. The only mechanical effect imposed was the slowed condition, which has a very specific game effect. If you tell the player that he is slowed, he should know exactly what that means. If you're suddenly going to expand slowed to have a much greater effect it is your obligation as DM to make the player aware of that ahead of time - preferably before the game even begins.
Second, even if you do decide that a dagger is buried in the player's calf, the player should still be reasonably assured that, in the absence of a clear house rule, the rules should function as they appear. It might make just as much "common sense" to the player that there ought to be some narrative way of taking the desired action regardless of the condition of his calf.
How about instead of requiring the player to come up with a way to describe it, you allow it first, and then everyone works to come up with a way to describe it in the game world? There are going to be precious few situations, if any at all, wherein you find yourself completely without a way to justify something allowed by the rules.
For the situation presented, (the monk with a dagger in his calf) there's no reason why you can't explain it as him handspringing into the desired space, or momentarily ignoring the pain through intense training/meditation, or any number of other ways around it.
As far as RAW, I think you're right. If the jump is not limited to your Speed, then you could have any Speed and the jump would apply normally. It seems odd, though, that the Monk would have an at-will that is essentially 'ignore being slowed' since a halfway-optimized level 1 Monk could have a +14 (+4 STR, Athletics training and the +5 power bonus) or more bonus to this roll to start with, meaning that even on a 1, she could clear 3 squares - up to 6 squares on a 16 or better!
I should also note that jumping is not effectively the same as normal movement. You cannot change direction in midair, but you can change direction as part of normal movement. By electing to use this kind of jump, you are restricting yourself to movement in a straight line only. Sometimes there won't be any difference. Other times you will find yourself unable to reach the desired square because of an intervening obstacle or enemy. Crane's Wings is not a Get Out of Slowed Free card.
I dislike the idea that it's somehow the player's responsibility to justify them being allowed to do something to the DM that is already explicitly allowed in the rules.
You got me. Enjoy your boardgame.
While I sympathize with your frustration over having your style of play summarily dismissed, I don't think that makes it especially helpful for you, in turn, to dismiss styles not your own.
You're right. That was mean and I'm sorry.
Scott - it is probably not best to paint someone else's prefered style of play as 'a problem'. While I am inclined towards a similar style of play as yourself - and having the players and DM share a narrative to explain the rules, rather than fit the rules into the context of a more simulated environment - the same isn't true of all players, and I think you are going a little too far to paint Fletch's style of DMing as 'dangerous'.
The only context in which I was trying to imply that it was a problem is when the player and DM come to different conclusions about how something works - in this case, the player illustrated clearly believes that he has the ability to jump freely while slowed, while the DM believes that the slowed condition ought to affect things not explicitly stated by the rules. This is a problem, in the sense that it is a conflict in need of a resolution. Now, Fletch has a resolution, certainly, so for his game it may not stay a problem for very long. It's not one that I'd choose, though, because it's essentially whipping out the big fat "I'm the DM, gosh darn it!" badge when solutions that I think are perhaps more elegant might be available.
And the "dangerous" bit was meant to reference the slippery slope of arbitrary rulings. If you can keep them under control, it's all well and good (and, of course, in D&D arbitrary rulings are necessary on occasion). But in my experience when DMs begin preferring arbitrary rulings over rules that actually exist, things very easily get out of hand.
Fletch, I didn't mean to imply that you were somehow doing it wrong. The style you put forward isn't how I'd handle things, but as long as your players enjoy the game I'm certainly not in any position to call your style of play anything but excellent for your group. I apologize if what I said came across any other way.
The only context in which I was trying to imply that it was a problem is when the player and DM come to different conclusions about how something works
Hopefully the decision would be based on common sense and not because the DM's strategy depends on the PC being slowed. I trust my players to call me out if I'm doing anything out of pettiness like that.